How can DAC's have a SOUND SIGNATURE if they measure as transparent?

[solderdude]

The stress cop-out is no excuse to disregard test results of properly done blind tests (whatever method is used that fits the test) and for that reason rather trust not controlled tests/comparisons.

Everyone who has ever done a proper blind test with audio knows how hard it is to do such as setting up the test, choosing the most suited music, fatigue and personal factors, time of day, duration of the test etc.

It is not easy to do proper listening tests.
Also... the vast majority of listeners does not care. They just have a preference and act on it which is probably the best way to go about this.

I have done a couple over the last decades and prefer to just enjoy music rather that to argue about this.
Measurements and above all correct interpretation of all relevant tests of electronics is good enough. Acoustics is another ballgame.

Interesting for actual researchers (science) or people that have something (their hearing abilities) to prove. Not so much for the average music aficionado that wants to enjoy what they hear.

 

[Mnyb]

Can we accept that there really is no need for yet another blind test off this .

But then how to convey the fact that sound quality of properly designed DAC’s has been above human capabilities for decades .

Which leads back to to the do a blind test for your self argument to all those who are still not convinced ?
As appeal to authorities or science does not help and actually hearing ( or rather not hearing it ) is the only thing that will eventually convince some . ( and then some shrug it of anyway as the test was not proper I was tired etc blah blah and still don’t believe even their own research )

How to get out of this treadmill and go forward ?

We are not spending every single day arguing with single enthusiasts getting it wrong .
But it’s a result of very powerful marketing and a high end culture ?

 

[solderdude]

Which leads back to the 'do a blind test for your self argument' to all those who are still not convinced ?

This is the best if someone really wants to find out for themselves. The ones that come on here to set ASR straight on the obvious differences between DACs really have no interest in doing this. Simply because they can clearly hear it so there is no need to doubt oneself or to do tests they don't believe in.
Also there is a big chance most people can not setup a properly conducted test or do not have the right gear/means to do so.

One simply can't convince someone that is already convinced himself. All we (ASR members) can really do is point out that sighted and not level tests may not be as valid as they believe it is.
It is not possible to get most 'better hearing people with better gear' to rethink their test methods or change their mind.
Some people, as has been shown in the past, actually take the advice and test differently and are glad they found ASR which potentially saves them money.

Also good to realize not all DACs actually do sound the same (which is visible in measurements) and can even have specific problems that may not occur on a test bench or one can even have a 'defective' DAC and not realize it.

Yep... this thread is a tough cookie with many aspects. Just realize you can't win them all, even when technically one does.

People often just hear what they want to hear, sometimes this is not what they expect to hear, and don't want to hear that what they heard is not what they thought they heard by someone that was not there when they heard what they did.
This is just as true for objectivists b.t.w. that stare blind on headphone/speaker measurements done on some (standard) fixtures and hear what they think they should hear when they applied their favorite EQ.

 

[KSTR]

But the fact that not a single person ever has managed to differentiate between “good enough” DACs in properly controlled tests says pretty clearly that stress cannot be the the only (or even the primary) reason.

Sorry, but how do you know, unless you are a God in disguise and have full knowledge what has ever happened somewhere? Could it be you are just referring to the tip of the iceberg (what was published) and only seen from one side (the part of it you actually have seen/read)?
Only few research is actually published or at least discussed in public.
Have you heard about Paul Frindle (an accomplished professional in the audio world) and his research? For a starter, read this post.

 

[Sir Sanders Zingmore]

Sorry, but how do you know, unless you are a God in disguise and have full knowledge what has ever happened somewhere? Could it be you are just referring to the tip of the iceberg (what was published) and only seen from one side (the part of it you actually have seen/read)?
Only few research is actually published or at least discussed in public.
Have you heard about Paul Frindle (an accomplished professional in the audio world) and his research? For a starter, read this post.

What does it mean if I've never heard of him? The linked post doesn't come close to being published research (of which you say there is some - where is it?)

 

[KSTR]

I'm not going to do the research you should have done before emitting such a bold claim, I quote, "But the fact that not a single person ever has managed to differentiate between “good enough” DACs in properly controlled tests says pretty clearly that stress cannot be the the only (or even the primary) reason." You have not shown anything to back up that extremely bold claim. BTW, also note that you can't prove a negative with ABX or similar.

And now let's leave it at that, it's not going to change anything for anybody anyway, we all prefer to stay in our bubbles, our comfort zones.

 

[copperblue]

Setting up a blind test between DACs is a non trivial matter for the average home user, instantaneous hardware switching etc. It's nothing like as simple as using the ABX functionality in FB2K to DBT codecs etc.
I've been using Wiim Pro Plus/optical/Topping E50 DAC combo as my network streaming source for a few months, to say I'm delighted with that combo would be an understatement; the Topping clearly is something else sound quality wise.
I've tried using the analogue out of the Wiim Pro Plus, and you know, there's something not quite as transparent about the sound of the Wiim.
Or so I tell myself.
Cognitive bias is real, why worry about it...so I use the output of the E50.
Which brings us to the Wiim Pro (non plus) model as an example; rhetorically speaking if that clears the threshold of human hearing why bother improving it?
Marketing, and sighted listening I guess.

 

[Basic Channel]

"There were several reasons why I was extremely eager to hear this system. First and foremost, given the high price of Wadax digital gear, I wanted to get a sense of what the Wadax Atlantis Reference DAC ($166,420), Wadax Atlantis Reference Server ($68,800), Wadax Atlantis Reference Transport $115,000), and Wadax Atlantis Reference PSU ($52,700) might sound like"

Yeah , i don't see this stuff ending up at Amir's place anytime soon, but you never know

Oh, and there were also 4 cables used, 20.400$ each, which lifted the final veils.

I can't work out what is worse, the price of the DAC or the price of the PSU for the same DAC. Imagine spending that on a DAC PSU and having other stuff in the room that would even be mildly acoustically compromising like that daft projector looking thing, or the light.

A DAC setup, or this acoustic treatment?

I know what I think looks better at least.

 

[pkane]

I'm not going to do the research you should have done before emitting such a bold claim, I quote, "But the fact that not a single person ever has managed to differentiate between “good enough” DACs in properly controlled tests says pretty clearly that stress cannot be the the only (or even the primary) reason." You have not shown anything to back up that extremely bold claim. BTW, also note that you can't prove a negative with ABX or similar.

Russell's Teapot, all over again.

 

[KSTR]

The poster I addressed could have simply used appropriate wording like "To my knowledge, we don't have any evidence that...". Sadly, he opted to express a very bold absolute claim "... the fact that not a single person..." instead. I find this attitude bad discussion style, to put it mildly, and it really triggers me.

Here at ASR, Carl Sagan's two most famous quotes are often used, for good reasons... but they are to applied applied in both directions.

Also, I think I made clear in the past that I don't support all those typical audiophile claims blindly, quite the contrary actually. But I do also know that we are still far from being able to label a DAC as "good enough" to be indistinguishable from another "good enough" one, just by a limited set of measurements that indicate (and indicate only) that differences might be below typical (and typical only) thresholds.

 

[pma]

Extreme, polarized attitude, not based on knowledge and deep experience in the field, is a problem. Such is any public forum.

 

[olieb]

But I do also know that we are still far from being able to label a DAC as "good enough" to be indistinguishable from another "good enough" one, just by a limited set of measurements that indicate (and indicate only) that differences might be below typical (and typical only) thresholds.

Are you sure that you really "know" that? How so? Did you not forget to put in a "To my knowledge, we don't have any evidence that..."?
I do appreciate most of your very knowledgeable posts but here ....

 

[IAtaman]

Sorry, but how do you know, unless you are a God in disguise and have full knowledge what has ever happened somewhere? Could it be you are just referring to the tip of the iceberg (what was published) and only seen from one side (the part of it you actually have seen/read)?
Only few research is actually published or at least discussed in public.
Have you heard about Paul Frindle (an accomplished professional in the audio world) and his research? For a starter, read this post.

At the point where you can reliably hear distortion artefacts that cannot even be measured on the world's most sensitive test kit - it seems you are launched into a pretty undefined world, where the listening test result outweighs the measured performance results.

Maybe in 2002. But, do you believe this statement is correct in 2024?

 

[IAtaman]

At the point where you can reliably hear distortion artefacts that cannot even be measured on the world's most sensitive test kit - it seems you are launched into a pretty undefined world, where the listening test result outweighs the measured performance results.

Maybe in 2002. But, do you believe this statement is correct in 2024?

Sorry, but how do you know, unless you are a God in disguise and have full knowledge what has ever happened somewhere? Could it be you are just referring to the tip of the iceberg (what was published) and only seen from one side (the part of it you actually have seen/read)?
Only few research is actually published or at least discussed in public.
Have you heard about Paul Frindle (an accomplished professional in the audio world) and his research? For a starter, read this post.

And, he is talking about speakers in a room I realized, not DACs.

 

[Keith_W]

Let us take a moment to reflect how far removed ASR is from "conventional" subjectivist hi-fi circles. In those places, it is "common knowledge" that cables make a difference, DAC's sound different, bad engineering has a "beautiful" sound, and so on. About the only time when there is controversy is when hi-fi tomfoolery gets too much for even them, where some of them think that things like Bybee bullets and Peter Belt are snake oil. They actually use that term. But ... cables and DAC's sound different? That is accepted and not controversial.

Now they come here and we dismiss the "fact" that cables sound different. Fair enough, they may know that not everybody thinks that cables sound different. But DAC's? Amps? That's actual electronic equipment that actually processes signal, how can they not sound different?

It is quite a conceptual leap for them, and it may be a bit too much for them to accept. Easier to dismiss ASR as a bunch of loonies than to abandon decades old beliefs. They may eventually come around. I did.

 

[Axo1989]

Let us take a moment to reflect how far removed ASR is from "conventional" subjectivist hi-fi circles. In those places, it is "common knowledge" that cables make a difference, DAC's sound different, bad engineering has a "beautiful" sound, and so on. About the only time when there is controversy is when hi-fi tomfoolery gets too much for even them, where some of them think that things like Bybee bullets and Peter Belt are snake oil. They actually use that term. But ... cables and DAC's sound different? That is accepted and not controversial.

Now they come here and we dismiss the "fact" that cables sound different. Fair enough, they may know that not everybody thinks that cables sound different. But DAC's? Amps? That's actual electronic equipment that actually processes signal, how can they not sound different?

It is quite a conceptual leap for them, and it may be a bit too much for them to accept. Easier to dismiss ASR as a bunch of loonies than to abandon decades old beliefs. They may eventually come around. I did.

Well, ASR are a bunch of loonies, but not for those reasons.

 

[pkane]

The poster I addressed could have simply used appropriate wording like "To my knowledge, we don't have any evidence that...". Sadly, he opted to express a very bold absolute claim "... the fact that not a single person..." instead. I find this attitude bad discussion style, to put it mildly, and it really triggers me.

Here at ASR, Carl Sagan's two most famous quotes are often used, for good reasons... but they are to applied applied in both directions.

Also, I think I made clear in the past that I don't support all those typical audiophile claims blindly, quite the contrary actually. But I do also know that we are still far from being able to label a DAC as "good enough" to be indistinguishable from another "good enough" one, just by a limited set of measurements that indicate (and indicate only) that differences might be below typical (and typical only) thresholds.

That bold claim is an exaggeration, of course, but it doesn't mean it isn't close to the truth. I never talk in absolutes (ok, almost never ) but I can understand the overreaction from others to the constant woo-woo being posted daily in this thread. Personally, I would seriously object to the "we can't prove a negative, therefore we can't know anything, ever" type of reasoning, which is common among audiophiles. Unfortunately, your post appears to implicitly support this point of view, which is why Russell's teapot was mentioned.

 

[MaxBuck]

I don't find it necessary to persuade subjectivists that they're wrong about alleged differences among similarly measuring DACs. I'm not here on ASR to prove anyone else wrong. I came here in order to learn how to assemble an excellent audio system, and I succeeded in doing so. Many thanks to @amirm and the other technical experts who post here in helping me understand the current state of the art.

Bottom line: it's not my responsibility in life to disabuse others of their fantasies. I'll leave that effort to those who have the credentials to qualify as experts (and I take their assertions with a fair portion of skepticism, too).

 

[krabapple]

Sorry, but how do you know, unless you are a God in disguise and have full knowledge what has ever happened somewhere? Could it be you are just referring to the tip of the iceberg (what was published) and only seen from one side (the part of it you actually have seen/read)?
Only few research is actually published or at least discussed in public.
Have you heard about Paul Frindle (an accomplished professional in the audio world) and his research? For a starter, read this post.

Paul Frindle (a familiar name to me, not just from his professional rep and from forums like Gearspace, but also from a venerable audio mailing list we're both on), in that 2010 Gearspace post is quite rightly championing ABX testing for being exquisitely revealing, but says nothing about stress or 'challenge' being a factor in any of the tests he mentions. Would you say they were proper tests? And is it on the basis of such tests that you claim to 'know' that we can't predict audible DAC difference from measurements? And is that not a sort of absolute claim itself?

At the risk of repeating myself I tiresomely propose a scenario: if the average golden ear, i.e. of the boastful, confident "obvious to me/veils lifted/even my spouse" school, is somehow persuaded to perform an ABX on his own (e.g., with a software comparator for files, with an ABX switching device for hardware), 'at his leisure' so to speak, on his own timetable, and finally reports a statistically insignificant number of correct answers , are you going to say we should discount those results because there's too much risk that he was stressed by the 'challenge', and/or his lack of 'training', to make his a proper test of his own boasted ability?

I tiresomely reassert: a single-subject test of a particular golden ear's boast is distinct from investigating a *principle*, where you are asking whether it's possible for a hypothetical difference to be reliably heard by anyone at all in a human population. For that, there is a whole protocol to follow to minimize the chance of missing a 'winner' (a true positive) in the population.

 

[D2013]

Also, I think I made clear in the past that I don't support all those typical audiophile claims blindly, quite the contrary actually. But I do also know that we are still far from being able to label a DAC as "good enough" to be indistinguishable from another "good enough" one, just by a limited set of measurements that indicate (and indicate only) that differences might be below typical (and typical only) thresholds.

If you Know then by all means tell us what measurements are missing!