RandomEar
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2022
- Messages
- 1,055
- Likes
- 2,683
Dude, just read the post I linked. It explains everything with nice graphs and all and gives a clean example in which a waveform is perfectly reconstructed by a linear phase fast roll-off filter. You're simply wrong about oversampling and reconstruction filters. If you're not willing to learn, this may be the wrong forum for you.Oh my. So your theory is if we want to hear music as the artist intended. We need to use oversampling, digital filtering, DSD Equalization and other digital processing. I see
I know enough about oversampling to know it alters the original wave form.
My argument explained the higher price, your argument is illogical nonsense.Niche product. It’s not relevant something is embraced by the masses if that’s your reference point them McDonalds makes the best Hamburgers in the world.
There's zero contradictions here. DACs can measure different and still sound the same. I never said anywhere that all DACs sound the same, you're just twisting my words.Woah. you said R2R DACs perform worse. Then a paragraph later you say ALL competently designed R2R and Sigma Delta sound identical. The “competently designed” kind of strikes me. If all DACs sound the same as you allege Then the competency of the designer and quality of the parts should not matter You are stating 3 contradictory things at the same time.
For devices which either sound almost the same or totally identical, yes you do need highly controlled testing if you want to get data with any reliability from listening tests. Using precise instruments like audio analyzers would be the far better choice, but some people insist on listening tests. If those are required, then at least do 'em right.So your saying your ears and brain can’t be trusted to distinguish between good sound and poor sound or Natural sound from artificial sound. Highly control testing in a lab is how you make the determination?
Also, this whole discussion is getting totally off-topic...