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

[mikroid]

Yes, it seems that a bit of "fuzz" is being equated (mistaken?) for "soul or emotion to music". This is not "high fidelity".

The Rega is not fuzzy.

One example of fuzzy sound I remember was on Audio Analogue Puccini SE amplifier.
That amp was hugely slow ,fuzzy, with a colored sound that made you fell asleep since first notes.

Again, are we allowed to have personal options of preferences or should we graduate some formal exams before expressing personal thoughts?

 

[SIY]

Again, are we allowed to have personal options of preferences or should we graduate some formal exams before expressing personal thoughts?

Opinions and preferences are fine, but extraordinary sonic claims need evidence.

 

[JeremyFife]

The Rega is not fuzzy.

One example of fuzzy sound I remember was on Audio Analogue Puccini SE amplifier.
That amp was hugely slow ,fuzzy, with a colored sound that made you fell asleep since first notes.

Again, are we allowed to have personal options of preferences or should we graduate some formal exams before expressing personal thoughts?

Personal preferences are absolutely fine, and unavoidable - we all have them.
Remember that these are personal though, and if we want to understand or to communicate with others it's better to stay with objective information.

 

[mikroid]

Opinions and preferences are fine, but extraordinary sonic claims need evidence.

I looked on my posts and I did not see any statements.
I mentioned that what I said are only opinions which of course are subjective.

Instead I quoted 2 major statements , one regarding what person thinks I am hearing ,second one how my mind is set to explain the sum spent for cable purchase.

 

[SIY]

It has a poor USB input, is not the most transparent DAC ,sometimes sounds more congested vs modern DACs but overall is very musical and dynamic.

I looked on my posts and I did not see any statements.

Just looking at your last post, this turns out to be untrue. How many more should we collect?

 

[IPunchCholla]

Training is more important than testing.

Welcome to How to Listen!

Overview How to Listen is a desktop software application developed by the Harman Internationa l R&D group for the purpose of training an...

harmanhowtolisten.blogspot.com

Only costs you time and brings more clarity than a visit to a doctor that only tests bottom hearing limits at a few frequencies that are important for speech.

They were replying to me, and I was referring more to the idea of performance on the Klippel Distortion test (and thinking it would be nice to have that for other things as well) as it is a form of testing (in that you can find where your limits currently are and then compare them to the data known about a piece of equipment) and training (my perception of distortion did improve over repeated attempts, a little bit). I wasn’t thinking about audio grams (though that might be useful for questions of high frequency) but more the things that come up endlessly: perception as it relates to volume, euphonic distortion, etc. Nobody starts with, “I wonder what the limits of my ability to sense these things are?” I’m just wondering what would happen if we were all forced to start there, as an idea, not an actual suggestion.

 

[mikroid]

Just looking at your last post, this turns out to be untrue. How many more should we collect?

If adding "In my very opinion/For Me" is required for each of my sentences or phrases I can do it.

 

[DSJR]

The Rega is not fuzzy.

One example of fuzzy sound I remember was on Audio Analogue Puccini SE amplifier.
That amp was hugely slow ,fuzzy, with a colored sound that made you fell asleep since first notes.

Again, are we allowed to have personal options of preferences or should we graduate some formal exams before expressing personal thoughts?

Puccini SE was 'musical' in that the melodic side of a musical piece had precedence over the dynamics (awful subjective description but I have my memories of several demo samples). Thing is and more importantly, the output stage was incredibly frail and the slightest hint of a possible short would blow the output stage immediately

The Rega dac was a sonic upgrade over the visually matching Apollo R CD player, and that was enough for most owners at the time. I'm grateful to this site and one or two others for moving me up and away from such things while saving a lot of money, even at trade rates!

 

[mikroid]

Anyway, one of sides seems strongly biased.
I don't think this debate serves to the purpose of this thread so I it is better to end here.
Thanks for your kindness and replies.

 

[JeremyFife]

If adding "In my very opinion/For Me" is required for each of my sentences or phrases I can do it.

Just relax a bit. Perhaps consider the impact of what you write, in your first couple of posts you said; Topping D90 sounds 'sterile' and that changing a power cord improves your sound.
No issue with you thinking that. However, statements like that will be challenged.

Back on thread subject: if you personally think that DACs sound different then that's fine, but it doesn't add anything to the debate so it's a bit pointless.
If you have reasons or theories for DACs sounding different then that's interesting

 

[Old_School_Brad]

I wonder how much time, effort, and energy could be saved if we required posters to take and post in their signature their ability to hear frequencies, distortion, noise, and volume?

Looking at the bad amp above, I would be maybe barely able to hear the distortion station in pure sine waves, in a very quiet environment, on a good tinnitus day. No way I’d hear it in music. Others could, though.

While we have soft and hard limits to audibility pretty well documented, nothing made the issues clearer than knowing my own audible threshold for some distortion and noise.

This is so true!
If you don't know your own personal threshold limits you are not really getting the most of information from tests and reviews.
It really is eye opening how much e.g. distortion there can be in music without me noticing.
And don't worry. I test right in the average group as well..

 

[SIY]

If adding "In my very opinion/For Me" is required for each of my sentences or phrases I can do it.

You're still making a sonic claim, a highly dubious one, and not supporting it with any evidence.

Perhaps a science-based forum is not for you?

 

[BDWoody]

If adding "In my very opinion/For Me" is required for each of my sentences or phrases I can do it.

Are you interested at all in whether what you are perceiving as a difference is based on the actual sound waves? If so, try some controlled testing.

If not, continuing to just throw out these kinds of highly unlikely claims is not going to lead anywhere productive for anyone.

 

[Tinker]

Training is more important than testing.

As we age the higher frequency hearing loss is what most people experience. No amount of training can compensate for what no longer exists. Train all you want but if you ain't got it you can't do it.

It's my theory... (warning, hear comes another fairy tale!) Most systems I listen to at the audio shows are shifted to the bright side. Why? The buying customer is an older male and has some level of HF hearing loss. Brighter speakers sound better to them.

I had the pleasure of driving high end cars as a quality control inspection. These vehicles come with excellent stereo systems. Here's a fact... almost every car I tested the customer had the treble pushed to the higher limit. The bass not so much but the treble was always at abnormally bright levels. The customer is an older male probably with HF hearing loss. Even the younger ones prefer a 'hyper realistic' treble. It's a definite trend. This didn't need measuring to hear it.

 

[ahofer]

Generally I am looking to learn and not to seek validation for what I already know.

sometimes sounds more congested vs modern DACs but overall is very musical and dynamic.
For me this is more important than any modern state-of-art which sounds plasticky and artificial, without any soul or emotion to music.

It’s not personal. Most here have made a Bayesian calculation that since there is a mountain of audiological and test evidence that well-designed DACs are indistinguishable, that anyone who is hearing a difference sighted is overwhelmingly likely to be committing a fundamental attribution error (the source of their perception is misatttributed to the DAC). Since this is a science-oriented site, we say so. I would say the same to your observations about “modern state-of-the-art”.

I’ll admit there’s a certain logic to repeatedly making unsupportable assertions against interest here if your goal is indeed to learn*, but there are better ways.


*If you want a good coding/home repair/ other male-dominated skill answer, I’ve found that posting a clearly WRONG solution on a forum/discussion board will bring out an expert anxious to show you the right way, whereas a direct question may be ignored. This is the ‘logic’ to which I refer.

 

[xray]

Generally I am looking to learn and not to seek validation for what I already know.


PS
Sorry if my English is not the most correct. Is not my native language.

Maybe you can tell us what it is you want to learn? The good people here are giving you real information but you seem to be discounting it.

BTW, I have no problem understanding your English.

 

[Head_Unit]

The bottom line is they believe measurements don't tell the full story because there is some subtle factor that can't be measured. Only their ears can detect this unmeasurable nuance.

Yeah I'm tired of that old yappety yap of "stuff that we don't know how to measure"-there's truth to that but it is used to hide film-flammery and self-fooling as well.

I've started framing the argument differently:
1) We CAN measure sound in time and magnitude to far better than any limits anyone posits to human hearing.
2) Therefore if we cannot measure even a minute change, by logic, it cannot be audible.
with the caveats that
3) If we do measure a minute change, then we can argue whether it is audible, because
4) Yes it is true that we do not know how to correlate everything we hear to a measurement, especially since everyone's physical and mental hearing differs.
but the further caveat that
4) See #2...this sidelines "stuff that we don't know how to measure" because we CAN measure if there is a DIFFERENCE. If a product's manufacturer cannot show at least a minute measured difference, they are full of sh!te.

Yeah I know, some will still nevertheless say "we don't know how to measure everything" ignorantly or purposely ignoring the logic train. Wish me luck in my truth campaign
Signed,
Don Quixote

 

[Head_Unit]

Maria goes off to live her newly colourful life very happily, not troubled at all by the difference between the actual colours of things and her personal perception.

Ah I'm going to save that analogy. Makes me think of TVs: the one in my friend's completely windowless light-treated theater room looks so much better than the TV in my light-colored, full-of-windows living room, that his TV just MUST be way better!
NOT.

 

[whit]

Most here have made a Bayesian calculation that since there is a mountain of audiological and test evidence that well-designed DACs are indistinguishable, that anyone who is hearing a difference sighted is overwhelmingly likely to be committing a fundamental attribution error (the source of their perception is misatttributed to the DAC). Since this is a science-oriented site, we say so.

"Science" doesn't require discounting plainly witnessed, honestly reported first-person evidence. First-person experience is fundamental to existence. Denying the existence of everything in human experience that some specific technical measures miss is more likely -- yes on Bayesian terms -- to be due to limitations of those instruments than limitations of human consciousness and perception.

I love the test reports here. I'm happily listening to a set of Fosi amps due to taking their results seriously. However, I've also just upgraded my DAC to an RME ADI-2 DAC FS from an Emotiva XDA-3. The difference in audio realism is significant -- despite that the RME is built around an earlier generation of the ESS chip than the Emotiva. Then again, I've also got the Fosis upgraded with Sparkos op-amps, which I'm sure you'll tell me I can't hear the difference of either. But I can. Your "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes" approach is not science. It's scientism. You're making a religion of the current incomplete stage in audio science and engineering's development.

Now, there's an honest neurological question of why some here can't hear the differences between DACs, or DAC filters, or op-amp coloration. There are people who can't tell one human face from another, either. Oliver Sachs was one. There are a lot of cognitive capacities which are surprisingly variable across populations. Olive Sachs was not stupid. I'm sure you're not either. But please stop pretending to be the voice of "science" here. This is embarassing to real scientists.

 

[Blumlein 88]

"Science" doesn't require discounting plainly witnessed, honestly reported first-person evidence. First-person experience is fundamental to existence. Denying the existence of everything in human experience that some specific technical measures miss is more likely -- yes on Bayesian terms -- to be due to limitations of those instruments than limitations of human consciousness and perception.

I love the test reports here. I'm happily listening to a set of Fosi amps due to taking their results seriously. However, I've also just upgraded my DAC to an RME ADI-2 DAC FS from an Emotiva XDA-3. The difference in audio realism is significant -- despite that the RME is built around an earlier generation of the ESS chip than the Emotiva. Then again, I've also got the Fosis upgraded with Sparkos op-apms, which I'm sure you'll tell me I can't hear the difference of either. But I can. Your "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes" approach is not science. It's scientism. You're making a religion of the current incomplete stage in audio science and engineering's development.

Now, there's an honest neurological question of why some here can't hear the differences between DACs, or DAC filters, or op-amp coloration. There are people who can't tell one human face from another, either. Oliver Sachs was one. There are a lot of cognitive capacities which are surprisingly variable across populations. Olive Sachs was not stupid. I'm sure you're not either. But please stop pretending to be the voice of "science" here. This is embarassing to real scientists.

I just recently in this thread mentioned Brandolini's law.