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

[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.

 

[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.