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

[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.

 

[oleg87]

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.

And again - we have been given zero reason to believe you can hear these differences, so no one cares - really. Until you offer even the slightest bit of evidence for such claims, they do not interest anyone here in the slightest. I can *imagine* hearing differences which do not survive controlled testing all day long. On the other hand, your confidence gives us considerable reason to believe you've done no testing of your hearing abilities and have little awareness of the need for controls.

 

[voodooless]

This is embarassing to real scientists.

The only one embarrassing is you..

If people can hear a difference, they can damn well prove it. And if they do, we can figure out why. All else is nonsensical hand waving

 

[BDWoody]

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 is no mystery there, nor has anyone ever shown that they can hear things not captured by measurements.

There is much to explain exactly why some of 'you' hear differences, but it has nothing to do with sound waves.

Maybe pony up a controlled test to provide evidence to your claims, otherwise just becoming more insistent and indignant isn't going to convince anyone of anything but your unwillingness to consider that you just might be fooling yourself.

As long as that just couldn't possibly be true, we aren't going to get very far.

"Science" doesn't require discounting plainly witnessed, honestly reported first-person evidence.

Do you understand the difference between anecdote and evidence? Stories aren't evidence, even if well meaning and 'honest'.

 

[IPunchCholla]

out of curiosity, are audio illusions believed in more than visual illusions? Or are there people out there insisting that there is real motion below?

 

[Jim Taylor]

"Science" doesn't require discounting plainly witnessed, honestly reported first-person evidence.

"Plainly witnessed, honestly reported first-person evidence" gives lawyers in a trial reason to chortle with suppressed glee. Ten examples of "honestly reported first-person evidence" can report ten different things ... and that's before cross, with no coaching.

Courts require evidence. Science requires, first and foremost, data.

Jim

 

[Frank2]

out of curiosity, are audio illusions believed in more than visual illusions? Or are there people out there insisting that there is real motion below?
View attachment 393881

Love that picture. Many audio illusions are essentially based on vision. Some years ago I turned the knob that controlled the cutoff frequency of my subwoofers. I unmistakably heard a significant difference. But then I saw my subwoofer amplifier was switched off... The difference I heard was created by my brain after the visual perception of the knob being turned. A very curious experience...a bit like looking at that picture.

 

[JustJones]

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.

Your contention is people who can't hear differences between DAC's or op- amps in well controlled blind tests suffer from some neurological disorder? I've read a lot wild theories tossed about on hearing differences in components on this site as well as others but this is about the craziest I've ever read. Kudos and adios.

 

[IPunchCholla]

Love that picture. Many audio illusions are essentially based on vision. Some years ago I turned the knob that controlled the cutoff frequency of my subwoofers. I unmistakably heard a significant difference. But then I saw my subwoofer amplifier was switched off... The difference I heard was created by my brain after the visual perception of the knob being turned. A very curious experience...a bit like looking at that picture.

The number of times I’ve done similar… I’ve basically pulled fake A/B tests on myself numerous times, each time believing I heard something in the audio until I realized that I was actually A/Aing myself.

 

[olieb]

Or are there people out there insisting that there is real motion below?

I hope not! Because the picture (nice one BTW) proves once and for all that there is no motion at all, it is all an illusion!
;-)

 

[ahofer]

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.

Yes, they are human.

The rest of your post is projection. Uncontrolled observations are fine, but meaningless without following up in controlled experiment. Nobody here is saying observation isn’t important, they are saying it is *insufficient* to support assertions that have a lot of experimental evidence working against them.

 

[Old_School_Brad]

I hope not! Because the picture (nice one BTW) proves once and for all that there is no motion at all, it is all an illusion!
;-)

But I assure you, I see movement so the picture does in fact move. Not everything we can see can be measured and peoples eyes are different.
I've been in the sight hobby all my life and have seen quite a lot. My wife glanced from the kitchen and she saw it move too.

I trust my eyes!

 

[Tinker]

Love that picture. Many audio illusions are essentially based on vision. Some years ago I turned the knob that controlled the cutoff frequency of my subwoofers. I unmistakably heard a significant difference. But then I saw my subwoofer amplifier was switched off... The difference I heard was created by my brain after the visual perception of the knob being turned. A very curious experience...a bit like looking at that picture.

Can a subwoofer be integrated into a system without using measurements or can the phase and crossover level be set by ear or would all the mental "illusions" be too much to deal with? After all, turning the knobs doesn't mean they actually do anything. Maybe they're broken or turned off/don't work. Without measuring it could all be my imagination experiencing another fairy tale?

 

[solderdude]

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.

Yes, as we age high frequency hearing loss is normal and expected and has nothing to do with speakers/systems sounding bright to you.
Note that 'brightness' in music is in the 2-5kHz part of the spectrum.
5-8kHz region is the 'sibilance' part of the frequency range.
8-12kHz region is 'sharpness'
As you can see only 'sharpness' is in the usually affected region for hearing loss.

Add to that the fact that the hearing is constantly 'calibrated' due to hearing all day sounds and easily adapts to changes.
This means that because age related hearing loss is gradual the brain compensates for this.
It also explains that even older audiophiles 'miss' nothing and are also bothered by 'sharpness' and 'sibilance' in recordings/systems and can still tell if something is 'bright' or not.

This is why I recommend training which helps with identifying frequency bands (in a blind-test manner) so one can recognize where possible issues are.

People (of all ages) generally prefer a little boosted upper treble and bass but usually dislike sharpness, sibilance. Some prefer more brightness than others as well as it 'highlights' details in music. 'Details' in music is not in the 12-23kHz region.

 

[Old_School_Brad]

Can a subwoofer be integrated into a system without using measurements or can the phase and crossover level be set by ear or would all the mental "illusions" be too much to deal with? After all, turning the knobs doesn't mean they actually do anything. Maybe they're broken or turned off/don't work. Without measuring it could all be my imagination experiencing another fairy tale?

This is bait but I'll answer anyway for other readers.

Can you integrate a subwoofer into a system without using measurements?
No. You can't perfectly integrate a subwoofer without measurements.
What you can do is a lot of sub crawling and a lot of running back and forth to perceive the different increments in the crossover region and getting the phase right with different test tones.
And even after all that work you can't be certain that the settings you've made can't be improved. They probably can.

 

[antcollinet]

Thanks for good intention, keep it for yourself.

Im sure we could say the same about your nonsensical “impressions”

 

[Frank2]

Can a subwoofer be integrated into a system without using measurements or can the phase and crossover level be set by ear or would all the mental "illusions" be too much to deal with? After all, turning the knobs doesn't mean they actually do anything. Maybe they're broken or turned off/don't work. Without measuring it could all be my imagination experiencing another fairy tale?

I think you highlight the central issue here: if I know that audio illusions exist, how can I separate them from what's actually produced by my subwoofer? Can I ever trust my ears again?

The picture with the visual illusion raises a similar question. It illustrates that part of my visual perception is solely created in my brain. How can I separate this from what's actually in the picture? The answer is: by measuring the pixels we discover they do not actually move, even though the visual illusion persists after knowing this.
The same is true for a DAC with its own sound signature: by measuring the signal produced by the DAC we may discover its sound signature is not in the signal, even if the auditory illusion persists. A well controlled double blind test that takes your brain out of the equation can confirm this by showing the perceived sound signature disappears.

Do DAC's have a sound signature? Yes, they do, but the question is whether it's produced by your brain or whether it's in the actual signal produced by the DAC. This can simply be determined by measuring the DAC output and by a well controlled double blind test.

 

[Old_School_Brad]

...

Do DAC's have a sound signature? Yes, they do, but the question is whether it's produced by your brain or whether it's in the actual signal produced by the DAC. This can simply be determined by measuring the DAC output and by a well controlled double blind test.

The highlighted is contradictory, is it not?
If a DAC has a sound signature in your mind but not in the actual signal it does not exist in the real world.

 

[solderdude]

DACs can have a sound signature though.
DACs can also be perceived as having a sound signature while not having one in reality.
DACs can also have both a sound signature and not have a sound signature depending on the used filter setting.

But agree that Frank 2 perhaps should have stated:
Can DAC's have a sound signature? Yes, they could, but the question is whether it's produced by your brain or whether it's in the actual signal produced by the DAC.