How can DAC's have a SOUND SIGNATURE if they measure as transparent?

[Purité Audio]

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

 

[pkane]

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?

 

[danadam]

#2. how does it sound (subjectively)

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.

 

[ahofer]

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"

Master Thread: Are measurements Everything or Nothing?

Marketing isn’t new. You have to have an angle, myth, guru, ‘master craftsman’ , measurements etc etc Keith

www.audiosciencereview.com

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.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Which ones?

Probably hoffman forums.

 

[SIY]

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.

 

[Rja4000]

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.

SMSL PS100 *$30.00* DAC (some limitations apply)

May or may not help: On your Sony TV, check if you have an option under Settings -> Channels & Inputs -> External Inputs -> Bravia Sync Settings -> Device Auto Power off Well, it turns out you've solved my issue! I followed your advice and the DAC stays on irrespective of the TV. It looks like...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Maybe they should consider using a golden plated 15kg box and sale it for 30k€...

 

[Tinker]

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."

 

[Tinker]

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.

 

[pkane]

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.

 

[JustJones]

Get back to DACs first I look at measurements to narrow it down then price and features. If measurements are so lousy there's a chance it might affect the sound, why bother?

 

[JeremyFife]

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.

 

[Jimbob54]

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 .

 

[Jim Taylor]

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

About 16 pages ago, I posted this link for your benefit:

This video explains the nature of - and need for - "controls" in making comparisons. Did you watch it?

Jim

 

[Tinker]

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.

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.

What are you talking about? I never said or suggested any such thing and you quote me saying that??? Yet I'm the one who doesn't understand? In fact, I just finished posting the exact opposite. "I believe there are three important evaluations to consider. #1. science."

Here's another one for you ahofer. A really fascinating one from pkane even with a fantasy quote.

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

 

[pkane]

What are you talking about? I never said or suggested any such thing and you quote me saying that??? Yet I'm the one who doesn't understand? In fact, I just finished posting the exact opposite. "I believe there are three important evaluations to consider. #1. science."

Here's another one for you ahofer. A really fascinating one from pkane even with a fantasy quote.

And I answered your "I believe..." post. Others have answered you multiple times, going back many pages. But you keep insisting that you understand while at the same time, doubling down on the ignorance of uncontrolled testing. Either you don't understand, are disingenuous, or a troll. Possibly all three? Or are you lost and wound up here by accident?

Of course science is a very important part but I believe there's more to it.

Belief is fantasy. Try knowing and understanding, instead.

 

[Demmers]

I'm fascinated as to what the final conclusion to this thread is going to be lol!
Here's my two-cents. What follows is the opinion of a made-up person: "I enjoy listening to the music I like, on the equipment I use. The DAC I use for example, according to tests, produces its own sound signature. But for whatever reason, regardless, I still enjoy what I hear, so I continue to use it".
Me personally, I use the Topping D10s DAC, so no alterations to the sound signature, just transparency, and I enjoy listening to music on my equipment too. But here's my response to the hypothetical statement I just made: "Good for you, i'm glad you're happy too, because isn't listening to music great?!"

 

[ahofer]

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.

I just want to repeat the quote with context. I don’t think there’s any disagreement here with @pkane, at least that I can see. He’s more than aware that sighted bias is the subject of a fair amount of scientific investigation, and that it is woefully under-attributed as a preference-driver by (it would appear) @Tinker and others.

 

[krabapple]

It appears you see yourself as the 'Audio police'. ASR does a great job of exposing it. However, not everyone wants to listen.

Even if they come here, they don't 'have to listen'. And if they don't come here, why would they care what we say?

Yes, Police. Enforcing the Law of the land and protecting people from snake oil. It's OK, not a problem. You should do that but just be a little nicer about it.

So, we share the same goal, to improve audio. However, I am a little more flexible when it comes to subjective listening options. For that I'm chastised. I always listen closely to Amirs opinion but I also listen to completely subjective opinions from other reviewers as well. Unthinkable!

Why am I here? I was asked a day ago insinuating my intentions were evil. Lots of suggested terms of infidelity. A traitor was loose in the forum! You don't belong. He's not one of us!! Like a Monty Python skit.

I'm asking now too because all you seem to be doing is spouting banalities, and here, imagining yourself a role as truth teller in some silly drama.

The main reason I'm here is because ASR is hands down the best science based technical reviews available on the internet. Amir does an incredible service for the audio crowd. I wouldn't buy a product without looking here first.

Gee, that's swell. So, you're made of tougher stuff than your green pen friend, you think?

 

[krabapple]

I'm fascinated as to what the final conclusion to this thread is going to be lol!

Can you point me to an ASR thread where there is a 'final conclusion' as opposed to it simply being shut down for being tediously repetitive?