• 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?

All he said was "the dots" aren't real. When in fact the white dots are real. Just saying.
I should have said black dots. But you get the point.
 
I’m still lost as to the point of

1)coming to this site and proclaiming, in so many words, “I can hear differences between DACs when I don’t properly control for volume or sighted bias.”

2) being surprised when this assertion is criticized and dismissed.

3) Doubling down with pedantry and rationalization, provoking more testy reactions.

4) Telling everyone they are closed-minded and mean and ruining the hobby for other people.


1727473120607.gif
 
I’m still lost as to the point of

1)coming to this site and proclaiming, in so many words, “I can hear differences between DACs when I don’t properly control for volume or sighted bias.”

2) being surprised when this assertion is criticized and dismissed.

3) Doubling down with pedantry and rationalization, provoking more testy reactions.

4) Telling everyone they are closed-minded and mean and ruining the hobby for other people.


View attachment 395139
So they can display their time-out/ban as a badge of honor at their subjective friendly sites they normally post? I do go to some other sites, and now and then someone pops up to say just that: how they came here to tell us how wrong we are, got banned, and that proves how mean, closed-minded, and wrong that we are. We could make money selling "I got banned by ASR!" t-shirts...
 
Last edited:
By "subjective," I assume you actually mean "utterly without basic controls?" Just to be clear.
I listen to some reviews based on listening impressions and personal opinions instead of purely science based facts.

Of course science is a very important part but I believe there's more to it. Did it ever happen to you, that a speaker measured perfectly flat but for some reason it didn't sound good to YOUR ears? Maybe a tube amp that didn't measure well but it sounded really good? I have.

Appearance has NOTHING to do with science, yet people generally do find a beautiful speaker more appealing and better sounding. Snake oil in plain view? Yea, maybe. Cheap parts inside and beautiful outside is rather deceptive. Buyer beware.

I believe there are three important evaluations to consider. #1. science. #2. how does it sound (subjectively) #3. how does it look. So, no I don't just use science as my only barometer. Guilty as charged.
 
I haven’t heard a fine measuring loudspeaker that I haven’t enjoyed, once you have heard transparency then colour just sounds odd.
We had valve amps here, Allnic just terrible I sold them as quickly as I could.
Actually their least expensive phono stage wasn’t too terrible the SQ became progressively worse the more you spent.
Keith
 
I believe there are three important evaluations to consider. #1. science. #2. how does it sound (subjectively) #3. how does it look. So, no I don't just use science as my only barometer. Guilty as charged.

And you think that anybody here disagrees with this? I’m guided by objective facts to select components that I know will perform. I test them and evaluate them, both, objectively and subjectively, and I’m certainly going to consider look and feel and functionality when making purchase decisions. Doesn’t everybody?
 
Appearance has NOTHING to do with science, yet people generally do find a beautiful speaker more appealing and better sounding.
I'd argue there's plenty of science behind sighted bias. It's just woefully under-attributed in the trade. I think the typical audiophile (not you) is embarrassed to admit the appeal lies outside of the engineering, or the signal, whereas expensive watch enthusiasts will freely admit their kilobuck timepieces aren't more accurate or convenient.

Oy, there I go doing the watch thing - "Patek's Law"


PS - I rule things *out* based on appearance all the time. But I also rule out things that don't measure transparently (electronics) or reasonably flat with even horizontal dispersion and low distortion (speakers). And I'll happily buy electronics based solely on measurements, although I take comfort in a return policy.

Measurements are a really good triage. Personally, I *hate* auditioning in stores. But I had an early traumatic experience working in an audio store in the late '70s.
 
I listen to some reviews based on listening impressions and personal opinions instead of purely science based facts.

Of course science is a very important part but I believe there's more to it. Did it ever happen to you, that a speaker measured perfectly flat but for some reason it didn't sound good to YOUR ears? Maybe a tube amp that didn't measure well but it sounded really good? I have.

Appearance has NOTHING to do with science, yet people generally do find a beautiful speaker more appealing and better sounding. Snake oil in plain view? Yea, maybe. Cheap parts inside and beautiful outside is rather deceptive. Buyer beware.

I believe there are three important evaluations to consider. #1. science. #2. how does it sound (subjectively) #3. how does it look. So, no I don't just use science as my only barometer. Guilty as charged.
The subject is DACs not speakers. And your answer is apparently, no basic controls at all. So apparently you have no interest in determining the reality of your beliefs.
 
Sorry if I misread what you said, but how often do we find DACs that measure badly enough for that to be audible?
I measured one recently and I can tell you its flaws are readily audible.
Just because the DAC itself is emitting sound following the input signal level.
It also has a 7.4dB undocumented shelf tone boost (or cut, depending which band you're considering "normal").
Incredible.


Maybe they should consider using a golden plated 15kg box and sale it for 30k€...
 
And you think that anybody here disagrees with this? I’m guided by objective facts to select components that I know will perform. I test them and evaluate them, both, objectively and subjectively, and I’m certainly going to consider look and feel and functionality when making purchase decisions. Doesn’t everybody?
Yup.

ahofer...."I'd argue there's plenty of science behind sighted bias."
 
You still didn't clarify if by "subjective," you actually mean "utterly without basic controls?". But it seems like the distinction flew over your head, so I guess I know what the answer is.
This post is a great example of a disingenuous, derogatory remark with the only intention is to demean and belittle. No intent of understanding anything from my post. Strawman is right here. THIS attitude puts a fine point on the problem here.

Yes ahofer, it is very fascinating indeed!!

@ahofer
3) Doubling down with pedantry and rationalization, provoking more testy reactions.
 
This post is a great example of a disingenuous, derogatory remark with the only intention is to demean and belittle. No intent of understanding anything from my post. Strawman is right here. THIS attitude puts a fine point on the problem here.

Yes ahofer, it is very fascinating indeed!!

@ahofer

I think you misunderstand the difference, which has been pointed out to you before. Subjective means personal, specific to an individual, but it doesn't have to mean biased or uncontrolled.

When I hear a difference between devices, I always try to spend the time to run the test with proper controls, to ensure I am really hearing the difference. I can't count the number of times that my uncontrolled listening produced obviously flawed impressions. If you don't do that extra step, it is very likely that your brain is manufacturing many, if not all the differences. This is based on science. It affects all humans, so not meant to belittle or demean you, it's just a fact.

If you keep doubling down on "my uncontrolled hearing is better than all your instruments", then you are the one belittling and demeaning others here. More than that, you are ignoring some very solid science with nothing to support you doing so.
 
I listen to some reviews based on listening impressions and personal opinions instead of purely science based facts.

Of course science is a very important part but I believe there's more to it. Did it ever happen to you, that a speaker measured perfectly flat but for some reason it didn't sound good to YOUR ears? Maybe a tube amp that didn't measure well but it sounded really good? I have.

Appearance has NOTHING to do with science, yet people generally do find a beautiful speaker more appealing and better sounding. Snake oil in plain view? Yea, maybe. Cheap parts inside and beautiful outside is rather deceptive. Buyer beware.

I believe there are three important evaluations to consider. #1. science. #2. how does it sound (subjectively) #3. how does it look. So, no I don't just use science as my only barometer. Guilty as charged.
What's important to you is personal to you, you can like anything you want.
My take:
'science' is way too loose a term. How about that #2 engineering is important and that measurements demonstrate whether the engineering is good. That's the objective part.
#2 do I like it ... can be as subjective as you like.

#3 do I want to communicate my subjective view of the sound to someone else, or do I want to compare one subjective impression with another... well then the subjective impression must have been made with appropriate controls or it's just personal to you and meaningless to anyone else. That's science.
 
This post is a great example of a disingenuous, derogatory remark with the only intention is to demean and belittle. No intent of understanding anything from my post.
Read more like an attempt at clarification to me. With perhaps a soupçon of collective frustration adding a certain something to this murky broth you're cooking up .
 
Back
Top Bottom