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

[antcollinet]

So it happened to you too! How about that!

What you're saying is that even though you followed the parameters your EARS were able to detect that something was wrong leading to further investigation. When I heard the same thing you called it impossible and I was imagining things.

We both FIRST heard a difference that something was not right. You then checked measurements and found an error. I also checked measurements and found an error. It seems we had a very similar "experience" but mine was "Worse" than an invalid "fairytale". Interesting how that works.

Wouldn't you agree that setting up a subwoofer is very subjective? There isn't one perfect setting of 'measurement' that's good for all. For subwoofers (not speakers) listening is my tool of choice.

Can you understand the difference between hearing things that are audible. (Noise or distortion or FR variation within the limits of human hearing), and thinking you are hearing something that is inaudible (all of noise, and distortion and FR variation outside the range of human hearing)?

 

[Tinker]

Can you understand the difference between hearing things that are audible. (Noise or distortion or FR variation within the limits of human hearing), and thinking you are hearing something that is inaudible (all of noise, and distortion and FR variation outside the range of human hearing)?

Why are you saying I think I'm hearing something inaudible? Phase reversal in some subwoofers can be VERY audible and not difficult to detect. Can you understand that?

 

[Matchpik]

HIFI literally stands for High Fidelity. It is not about what we hear, it is about is taking the input, and sending it to the output with as close to perfect fidelity as possible (no changes to the shape of the waveform - except where those are designed and specific - eg tone controls or DSP)

What we hear then is unchanged from what was put onto the recording. We don't need to measure that, as I said - it is not our business here.

Ah! The age-old method of making things easy for one's self by allowing the original recording to define correctness. I also used to adhere to this. But one day I began to consider why I did this. Why do I assume whatever the recording engineer decided on is correct or best? His hearing is just as different as the next person's. He just happens to have training or experience in the area. But how do I know what his or her goal was on this recording? His hearing is not flat just as mine is not. I don't know what equipment they were using, but it surely isn't the same as the equipment I'm listening on.

See there's no logic to assigning 'fidelity' to exact reproduction of the recording since you will never hear such unless you happen to have the exact same listening rig as the engineer. But that doesn't necessarily make it musical. I think having a clean reproduction of strings on a guitar, timbre of a wood-bodied instrument, those sorts of things, make for fidelity. Everything else is just presence or which sound to give prominence in the recording. I've heard some engineers give too little prominence to vocals in some recordings, and sometimes too much. We've all heard those recordings that sound imbalanced.

I have rarely felt the need to EQ anything, but I'm not opposed to it because the recording engineer is not a magical deity who knows what's best for me. More likely he is considering how the program material will generally sound on mass-produced consumer electronics. I used to feel like recording engineers were in the audiophile's corner, but that's not likely what they get paid to do, and they can't all be Alan Parsons.

 

[Purité Audio]

Nothing to do with. the engineer or what he was listening to, the only artefact we have is the record itself, which I, personally want to reproduce as accurately as possible.
Keith

 

[Jim Taylor]

Ah! The age-old method of making things easy for one's self by allowing the original recording to define correctness. I also used to adhere to this. But one day I began to consider why I did this. Why do I assume whatever the recording engineer decided on is correct or best? His hearing is just as different as the next person's. He just happens to have training or experience in the area. But how do I know what his or her goal was on this recording? His hearing is not flat just as mine is not. I don't know what equipment they were using, but it surely isn't the same as the equipment I'm listening on.

See there's no logic to assigning 'fidelity' to exact reproduction of the recording since you will never hear such unless you happen to have the exact same listening rig as the engineer. But that doesn't necessarily make it musical. I think having a clean reproduction of strings on a guitar, timbre of a wood-bodied instrument, those sorts of things, make for fidelity. Everything else is just presence or which sound to give prominence in the recording. I've heard some engineers give too little prominence to vocals in some recordings, and sometimes too much. We've all heard those recordings that sound imbalanced.

I have rarely felt the need to EQ anything, but I'm not opposed to it because the recording engineer is not a magical deity who knows what's best for me. More likely he is considering how the program material will generally sound on mass-produced consumer electronics. I used to feel like recording engineers were in the audiophile's corner, but that's not likely what they get paid to do, and they can't all be Alan Parsons.

1) There is no need to assume that whatever the recording (more likely mastering) engineer decided is right ..... FOR YOU. You can have any effect that you want; you can use DSP for adding distortion, for use as a tone control, and if you want some resonant cabinet that adds its own style of distortion, then you can have that, too. But don't expect the people who bring you these recordings to take your personal brand of likes and dislikes into account. You are one of hundreds of millions of people who listen to recordings worldwide, and the personal likes and dislikes of others are very likely different than yours.

2) The final product is not just the outcome of the efforts of recording, or mixing, or mastering ... it's also a product that has to pass the approval of the artist(s), and (ultimately) the producers. Most likely, the recording, mixing and mastering engineers have no opinion regarding the final product. It is, after all, just their job. They are just doing this for a living. The opinions that really count are the producer's and artist's. If you don't like what is on the recording, you need to take it up with them. (Believe you me, there are many times that I have wanted to do just that! )

3) The "fidelity" that recordings display does, therefore, not necessarily have anything to to with plucked strings, timbre, or anything "clean". The recording may be the artist's idea of Armageddon In The Studio, and he/she/they may want it to sound like what you and I consider to be "sh*t".

FYI ... My likes and dislikes seem to roughly align with yours. However, I've seen many businesses come and go because they did not offer the consumer what the consumer wanted to buy. The recording business is the same way. May we weep in unison?

Jim

 

[JeremyFife]

Why are you saying I think I'm hearing something inaudible? Phase reversal in some subwoofers can be VERY audible and not difficult to detect. Can you understand that?

It's probably because you said "I also attribute this change to the addition of the Sparkos SS2590 discrete Op-amp. The level of improvement is stunning" which does seem unlikely.
I get your point about phase reversal which is, as you say, a different thing.

 

[antcollinet]

Why are you saying I think I'm hearing something inaudible? Phase reversal in some subwoofers can be VERY audible and not difficult to detect. Can you understand that?

I’m talking about your claims regarding power cables (as well as some other equivalent nonsense). Which do absolutely nothing, nada, zilch, to the sound. Of course they don’t, there is no engineering mechanism for them to do so.

Can you understand that?

 

[Tinker]

I’m talking about your claims regarding power cables (as well as some other equivalent nonsense). Which do absolutely nothing, nada, zilch, to the sound. Of course they don’t, there is no engineering mechanism for them to do so.

The one speaking nonsense is you. You're mixed up with someone else. I've never made ANY comments regarding power cables or any cables for that matter.

 

[antcollinet]

Ah! The age-old method of making things easy for one's self by allowing the original recording to define correctness.

OK - as others have pointed out. Make any changes you like. Tone controls, EQ, distortion, room equalisation.

But don’t try to do that usining random “colouration” of gear. Do it deliberately, thoughfully, specifically. IE Start with gear that reproduces the recording correctly - then apply whatever specific effects you might want to that. But trying to do that with random “colouration” of the reproduction gear is an expensive hiding to nothing. And is the opposite of HIFI.

 

[antcollinet]

The one speaking nonsense is you. You're mixed up with someone else. I've never made ANY comments regarding power cables or any cables for that matter.

You are right - that was not you,, and for that I apologise.

However, you’ve made equally nonsense statements regarding op amps and differences between DACs (probably more - I find I lack the will to trawl further through your post history), and I admit to finding it difficult to separate the paddlers of nonsense no matter what the type. For that I struggle to feel the need to apologise.

 

[Tinker]

It's probably because you said "I also attribute this change to the addition of the Sparkos SS2590 discrete Op-amp. The level of improvement is stunning" which does seem unlikely.
I get your point about phase reversal which is, as you say, a different thing.

Ok, fair enough.

Playing with many different op-amps in most cases did little to nothing. The difference that stunned me is when I switched to the Sparkos but now I realize I should have kept that to myself. None the less, the change that did occur was in fact significant enough to require a reversal of the phase in the subwoofers. This is NOT suggesting that it's was caused by changing of the op-amp. This audible change led me to investigate further.

 

[SIY]

now I realize I should have kept that to myself.

Or check to see if it's real. Of course that involves a willingness to test your perceptions.

 

[Old_School_Brad]

That to me seems just a matter of definition, i.e., whether you define 'sound signature' as something measured or something perceived.

It can even be more subtle than that: The visual illusion picture does contain a 'signal' (pattern of colors and shapes) that causes the illusion of movement. So, in some sense you could argue that the visual perception of movement is actually encoded in the picture.

In a similar way you can encode auditory perceptions in a DAC output signal by (dynamic) manipulations of phase, frequency response, etc.
You could even disable these signal changes if the DAC detects a measurement signal. Such implementations do exist, like in this test of a Denon CD player on Audioscience review:

It's not a matter of definition.
If a "sound signature" is only perceived but not able to be verified by blind tests or measurements it does not exist but is merely imagined.

The "encoding of auditory perceptions" in a DAC would show in measurements. It is not possible to do illusion tricks (like the moving picture) with audio without being able to measure the difference.

What is a matter of definition though, is when we speak of a DAC, do we think of it as a unit, in a box, with in and outputs or do we think of it as the DAC chip component.
DAC = Unit. Ready to use.
DAC chip = Component.

 

[antcollinet]

It's not a matter of definition.
If a "sound signature" is only perceived but not able to be verified by blind tests or measurements it does not exist but is merely imagined.

The "encoding of auditory perceptions" in a DAC would show in measurements. It is not possible to do illusion tricks (like the moving picture) with audio without being able to measure the difference.

What is a matter of definition though, is when we speak of a DAC, do we think of it as a unit, in a box, with in and outputs or do we think of it as the DAC chip component.
DAC = Unit. Ready to use.
DAC chip = Component.

I wish people would stop using the word "imagination" in this context.

Differences in perceived sound coming from perceptive biases are NOT imagined.

Imagination is a deliberate, active, creative process that the “imagineer” knowingly takes part in. Perceptive biases operate subconsciously to actually change the perception of the sound before it reaches the conscious brain. But the perceptions are genuine.

The problem with describing this as imagination is it is often used to disparage the listener: “you are just imagining it”. More importantly, the listener knows they are perceiving what they are perceiving. That they are not making it up due to some weakness of mind. It doesn’t help them to understand what is going on.

Don't make me post Mckgurk again.

 

[Old_School_Brad]

I wish people would stop using the word "imagination" in this context.

Differences in perceived sound coming from perceptive biases are NOT imagined.

Imagination is a deliberate, active, creative process that the “imagineer” knowingly takes part in. Perceptive biases operate subconsciously to actually change the perception of the sound before it reaches the conscious brain. But the perceptions are genuine.

The problem with describing this as imagination is it is often used to disparage the listener: “you are just imagining it”. More importantly, the listener knows they are perceiving what they are perceiving. That they are not making it up due to some weakness of mind. It doesn’t help them to understand what is going on.

Don't make me post Mckgurk again.

View attachment 394244

I'll meet you half way and call the biased perception phenomenon unconscious imagining..

 

[Blumlein 88]

I'll meet you half way and call the biased perception phenomenon unconscious imagining..

That still isn't really good enough. I too don't think this is somewhere for halfway. The people are perceiving not imagining. It is a biased perception that doesn't match physical reality. It is not imagined. It is hard enough to discuss it with people without using a term that sounds more like an indictment of their intelligence rather than just their perceptions.

 

[mikemcsw]

i had that feeling that something was fishy about the OP

agree 100%...to me, i am co

I suggest reading OP's posting history before putting much effort into a response.

For example, see here: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-wireless-usb-dac-2-review.34460/post-1244061

"People can believe whatever they want about objective measurements, but until i hear about any measurements thtat actually determine how well instrument separation and soundstage is, i believe in both objective and subjective impressions, and it is not just bias. Even my wife who never does critical listening, she immediately stated that when i introduced either of the 2 amps mentioned that she could hear a dramatic difference."

I agree 100%. So many people here don't believe a dac can make a difference, where in my humble opinion, i am "confident" that there can be differences. I believe there is little to no differences of similarly designed dacs, but i can clearly hear differences between a cheap ess dac and a schiit or chord. I don't know how people feel about AMPS here, but i equally believe big differences can be heard with amps, and like you said, my wife immediately heard a difference when i hooked up a high current macintosh amp...so i say "rubbish" to the naysayers, but, point of discussion....I do believe that there is "likely" little or no difference between digital sources, and looking for any arguments from anyone that believe there can be easily distinguishable differences between digital sources.

 

[BDWoody]

So many people here don't believe a dac can make a difference, where in my humble opinion, i am "confident" that there can be differences. I believe there is little to no differences of similarly designed dacs, but i can clearly hear differences between a cheap ess dac and a schiit or chord.

We're just going to split this out and move it to better suited thread.

 

[Tinker]

It seems that everyone has this flaw of "biased, perception phenomenon of unconscious imagining". (great term!) The overall consensus in this forum is that this is an extremely severe flaw and should be exterminated. I get that, after all, this is all about proven, measured science.

However, there is something to be said about the romantic fantasy of a new component. The science people seem to HATE the idea that pleasure could be had from something imagined. Lighten up. After all this is just a hobby. If you think putting space rocks on your speakers makes them sound better... go for it. I'm glad for you. Real or imagined. After all, it's a personal private fantasy and that's a big part of the fun for many people. Key word...FUN.

 

[Blumlein 88]

It seems that everyone has this flaw of "biased, perception phenomenon of unconscious imagining". (great term!) The overall consensus in this forum is that this is an extremely severe flaw and should be exterminated. I get that, after all, this is all about proven, measured science.

However, there is something to be said about the romantic fantasy of a new component. The science people seem to HATE the idea that pleasure could be had from something imagined. Lighten up. After all this is just a hobby. If you think putting space rocks on your speakers makes them sound better... go for it. I'm glad for you. Real or imagined. After all, it's a personal private fantasy and that's a big part of the fun for many people. Key word...FUN.

No NO NO.

Plenty of us here have said if it makes it fun or you just like something better then fine no problem. What we don't like is someone taking this route and then telling everyone science does not work, or something is so due to this faulty method which is prone to difficulties and arguing they are right with all the scientists wrong. That measurements are missing something humans easily hear when in fact they aren't hearing it because it is not there. They are hearing it because of how the human mind effects hearing for non-sonic reasons.