Because it isn't intuitive. Same thing with sampling theory. People don't seem to trust things based on math they don't understand. Thing is, once you 'get' the math, it is quite beautiful.
-
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!
Serious Question: How can DAC's have a SOUND SIGNATURE if they measure as transparent? Are that many confused?
- Thread starter Willhelm_Scream
- Start date
Because it isn't intuitive. Same thing with sampling theory. People don't seem to trust things based on math they don't understand. Thing is, once you 'get' the math, it is quite beautiful.
That would require the ability to adapt your beliefs based on facts.
It makes me want to make music that doesn't use tones 
Veritassium had a nice video about FFT last week:
Turns out the algorithm (as well as the transform itself) was already discovered by Gauss, about 150 years before the official invention date. We should call it the Fast Gauss Transform
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 20,784
- Likes
- 37,681
It makes me want to make music that doesn't use tones
Yeah, all this stuff was discovered and proven hundreds of years ago. I guess some people just never got the memos, so they come bug us.Veritassium had a nice video about FFT last week:
Turns out the algorithm (as well as the transform itself) was already discovered by Gauss, about 150 years before the official invention date. We should call it the Fast Gauss Transform
Somehow, I doubt that.
Well, you know about broken clocks...
I still remember that one line; "The words of the profits are written on the studio wall. Concert hall!"
/Oh, wait...
Galliardist
Major Contributor
Of course. The point is really that the blind test usually comes down to "when we remove every potential cause of two suitably accurate devices sounding different, then they sound the same".
That may seem dismissive, but we don't have to allow for audible differences other than those we know about from proper conventional measurements and understanding, and the damn devices still keep sounding the same.
Galliardist
Major Contributor
It makes me want to make music that doesn't use tones
Less wear and tear on an expensive piano that way, too!
Right thanks for the info..
Complete conjecture on my part but it seems that this is the place where some kind of digital analysis is required .. i.e is there any repeated patterns in the differences that could be attributed to the 2 tested almost perfectly transparent devices somehow not being quite the same under real conditions... Could any repeated differences also contain clues to which sine waves make up these differences and at what strength? .. thereby adding to a possible describable signature difference. The strength aspect would set up a new debate as to if it's audible or not... What fun!
I have no access to su-9 to test anymore .. sent it back for reasons given .. maybe I will get Amazon to "lend me one" again!
I could do the test for the TV DAC v rme but if any of you were here and could not instantly tell the difference at levels moderate to loud then possibly I respectfully suggest you need to find another interest! Some such differences are clearly obvious... (Even to my wife).
Something to be done once it has been shown that there actually are audible differences.
Oh, the standard audiophile "even my wife can hear it".
So, please tell us how you can tell if the differences you hear are because of some coloration in one of the devices, or just a level difference of a decibel or two? Human ears don't perceive small level differences as a difference in volume, but rather as a difference in the quality of the sound.
We keep going down this road every other thread. Someone thinks they hear something, and we should work hard to prove it.
To be fair, some TVs are known to do all kinds of processing before they output anything, even on the digital output sometimes. I wouldn't trust any TV to give decent audio, other than via HDMI.
Optimal sound path for TV's optical out?
Hello, I have a LG CX TV. I initially wanted to buy 2 KEF Q950 towers and a SVS/Arendal powered sub to connect to a HDMI 2.1 Yamaha/Denon AVR. But seeing as AVRs with perfectly working HDMI 2.1 are not out yet (for gaming purposes - 4:4:4 4k120hz with ALLM, G-Sync etc.) and I being in need of...
www.audiosciencereview.com
Noisy digital audio on LG TVs
Dear audio science enthusiasts, I recently got one of those popular LG C1 TVs. Since I only have a stereo system, but several HDMI sources plus using the TV's apps, I went the easiest audio route for my setup: (source) -> TV -> optical out (PCM) -> DAC -> analog Preamp As I realized only after...
www.audiosciencereview.com
Last edited:
In other words, you can’t tell without peeking. Otherwise, you’d actually have evidence by now to back up your unlikely claims.
Sometimes you do. It's extraordinary what selective attention and expectations will do.
But with TV DACs there is often some other processing going on that does affect sound. Even digital out (lossy resampling).
My new Sony TV and 4k bluray player work excellent together for PCM pass trough via TOSLINK to an external DAC. I tried connecting the bluray player directly to the external DAC with the SPDIF output and there is no difference. My slightly older Sony TV and Panasonic bluray player didn't play as nice, so I bypassed the TV. Both bluray players outputting HDMI.
Similar threads
- Poll
