Serious Question: How can DAC's have a SOUND SIGNATURE if they measure as transparent? Are that many confused?

[amper42]

How have you tested this? If memory serves, the FR differences in the audible range are quite small and the differences in the audible range of people who aren't under 21 are close to nonexistent.

Yes, on the Revel F328Be the move from the SD Sharp to SD Slow filter with the RME ADI-2 filter adds a nice extra sheen to the highs. It's especially noticeable with cymbals. On my BMR Monitors, it's less noticeable.

 

[SIY]

Yes, on the Revel F328Be the move from the SD Sharp to SD Slow filter with the RME ADI-2 filter adds a nice extra sheen to the highs. It's especially noticeable with cymbals. On my BMR Monitors, it's less noticeable.

How have you tested this?

 

[amper42]

How have you tested this?

With the RME Software you can play your favorite tracks and instantaneously switch back and forth in real time between the two filters. It's an amazing tool for AB'ing any difference while listening to your favorite tracks. It makes it easy to identify which variant you prefer.
The filters are different enough that I can correctly identify in a blind test when SD Slow is turned off with the F328Be.

 

[SIY]

The filters are different enough that I can correctly identify in a blind test when SD Slow is turned off with the F328Be.

Was this at 44.1k or a higher SR?

 

[Mr. Haelscheir]

Yes, on the Revel F328Be the move from the SD Sharp to SD Slow filter with the RME ADI-2 filter adds a nice extra sheen to the highs. It's especially noticeable with cymbals. On my BMR Monitors, it's less noticeable.

How do you know this was not due to a slight positional variation of your own head relative to your speakers' directivity and the comb filtering in anything but an anechoic chamber? A fair experiment is to play some pink noise and then move your head just centimeters in each direction. Testing with headphones should greatly reduce that variability.

 

[SIY]

How do you know this was not due to a slight positional variation of your own head relative to your speakers' directivity and the comb filtering in anything but an anechoic chamber?

At 44.1k, the frequency response differences definitely fall into the "audible to young ears" range ( looked at my measurements of the ADI-2 FS B). At higher SR, it's more problematic.

 

[Miguelón]

Our senses have some similarities in how they function. How to explain the discrepancy between measurements and people's perception in audio? The same way you explain discrepancies in our other senses. You also determine whether the perception is accurate or not the same way. You are refusing to acknowledge that. You appear to be making every excuse in the book not to properly test yourself and you are willing to believe every possibility any possibility except the most common and likely possibility.

I’m open to both possibilities: measurements are inadequate or perception is biased.

Not my problem if many members, as technicians or engineers, trend to believe only in one of both explanations.

Audiophiles believe the opposite: their perception is true and the measurement don’t reflect perceptive reality.

Can you show a definitive argument in one or other direction?

 

[SIY]

I’m open to both possibilities: measurements are inadequate or perception is biased.

Here's a list of all the listening tests using basic controls where DUTs are distinguishable by ear but simple measurements don't show a clear difference:

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

 

[Purité Audio]

‘audiophiles believe’
No argument there.
Keith

 

[Mr. Haelscheir]

I’m open to both possibilities: measurements are inadequate or perception is biased.

Not my problem if many members, as technicians or engineers, trend to believe only in one of both explanations.

Audiophiles believe the opposite: their perception is true and the measurement don’t reflect perceptive reality.

Can you show a definitive argument in one or other direction?

The problem is when "audiophiles" let numerous factors other than the sound signal itself be present to possibly influence their "perceptive reality". Sure, one may hear differences of immeasurable phenomena, but if the two pieces of gear are found virtually identical in a null test (subtracting the synced signals yields differences well below audible), then that "perceptive reality" of differences is purely psychological in nature and we are asking manufacturers to be weavers of psychological manipulation.

 

[ahofer]

Can you show a definitive argument in one or other direction?

The audiophile claim is Russell’s Teapot. Null Hypothesis is undefeated.

 

[Miguelón]

Here's a list of all the listening tests using basic controls where DUTs are distinguishable by ear but simple measurements don't show a clear difference:

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

I can send you a shorter list of technicians open to consider inaccuracy on their methods…

 

[ahofer]

I can send you a shorter list of technicians open to consider inaccuracy on their methods…

Your place in audio engineering history awaits. Carpe Diem.

 

[sonitus mirus]

I hope we aren't subjected to another PS Audio video.

 

[Miguelón]

The audiophile claim is Russell’s Teapot. Null Hypothesis is undefeated.

Very funny, you’re comparing an orbiting imaginary teapot with someone who simply tell you “this DAC sound to me better than this other one”.

On numerous posts, I didn’t find one of those studies published to examine the methods. Can anyone send a couple or more about the transparency of DACs?
I searched a little but don’t know well the audio publications sites, I will be happy to read how were performed and in which conditions

 

[amper42]

Was this at 44.1k or a higher SR?

I tested the RME ADI-2 DAC FS "SD Slow" versus "SD Sharp" filter with the Fourplay "Fourplay" album at 44.1k. These tracks have considerable percussion and cymbals. With the SD Slow filter the cymbals sound less compressed and ring a little longer which sounds quite natural to my ears.

 

[Jim Taylor]

Very funny, you’re comparing an orbiting imaginary teapot with someone who simply tell you “this DAC sound to me better than this other one”.

Yes, exactly. What you fail to understand is that without the proof provided by disciplined and logical scientific investigation, one is as preposterous as the other.
Many people have relied on lackadaisical, undisciplined and slipshod comparisons, and thereby convinced themselves that they heard something that was later proven to not exist. Only by adhering to strict guidelines (such as are delineated in the video I posted) can you know what you really hear and what you really don't hear.

The reason for this inaccuracy is, as you've been told, the functions of various biases in the human brain. These biases affect all of us.

Jim

 

[ads_cft222]

I don’t see any way for this debate to settle without an independent party conducting a large scale test with jointly agreed methods and hypothesis . Everything is a conjecture currently. Although I don’t doubt that dacs definitely won’t have such a big impact as speakers and room correction.

Although to be honest I believe that many people will fail blind tests even between speakers or/and room correction .

 

[Miguelón]

I tested the RME ADI-2 DAC FS "SD Slow" versus "SD Sharp" filter with the Fourplay "Fourplay" album at 44.1k. These tracks have considerable percussion and cymbals. With the SD Slow filter the cymbals sound less compressed and ring a little longer which sounds quite natural to my ears.

View attachment 365130

Can filters be the answer to who, as me, find different sound on supposed well constructed DACs apart from psychological manipulation?
I’m very tired to continue arguments, my Focusrite Scarlett has minimal phase and Zen Dac has something called GTO “our infamous filter”. To my ears high frequencies sound so sharp to a fatiguing degree. Another Ifi DAC (dongle) has the same GTO thing and still sounds fatiguing on my IEMs

 

[Miguelón]

Yes, exactly. What you fail to understand is that without the proof provided by disciplined and logical scientific investigation, one is as preposterous as the other.
Many people have relied on lackadaisical, undisciplined and slipshod comparisons, and thereby convinced themselves that they heard something that was later proven to not exist. Only by adhering to strict guidelines (such as are delineated in the video I posted) can you know what you really hear and what you really don't hear.

The reason for this inaccuracy is, as you've been told, the functions of various biases in the human brain. These biases affect all of us.

Jim

I think you exaggerate a little bit, look that something vital to life!

I’m searching about the possibility of filter influences on high frequencies, my personal complaint to 2 Ifi DACs I have… at least they are measurable.

Don’t suffer a heart attack please, world will turn equally despite who is right or not