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

[ahofer]

People don’t change their mind immediately, of course. But a properly planted seed of doubt goes a long way. My ‘seed’ was the Stereo Review amplifier test. Prior to that I just accepted the nonsense, and I was resistant to the article's conclusions - thinking the level matching had somehow made the sound worse and such.

But that seed grew in the back of my mind, and then, many years later, when I could go on the internet and see how lopsided the evidence was…I became more open to the idea. It’s always easier to come around when it feels more like you are doing it on your own.

Perhaps the best we can hope for a more objective audio culture is that we’ve planted that seed of doubt.

 

[Deckard01]

Too many pages so as to have a sum up right!?

 

[ahofer]

Too many pages so as to have a sum up right!?

Taking the thread title questions in order:

1) they don’t
2) unfortunately, yes.

Sprinkled throughout:
“I can hear it”
“Did you level match? Did you listen blinded”
“I don’t need to it was obvious/my wife could even hear it”
“Yeah, we don’t buy that one bit”
“You guys suck/you take all the fun out of it/go listen to your graphs.”
“At least we didn’t go to your place and throw turds in your punch bowl.”

 

[Mart68]

Too many pages so as to have a sum up right!?

I can have a go if you like:

'Most DACs don't have a sound signature and those that do have them for mundane reasons, such as heroic amounts of noise or very early roll-off in the HF.

To date, no evidence acceptable to the experts has been produced to upset this paradigm.'

 

[Sal1950]

I think the good news has been the success of this site over the last 8 (REALLY?) years.
Maybe people want and need to believe they don't have to spend High End kinds of money to get SOTA audio (or very close too it)
But we give them the tools (education) to figure out much of it on their own.
The snake-oil subjective believer pushers had a bunch of years that went almost unchallenged and gained a lot of ground.
Since the demise of mainstream mags like Stereo Review & Audio, undergrounds like The Audio Critic, etc; things had run wild.
But today you can read & feel the impressions ASR, Archmago, Audioholics, more, has made around the web, their waves have been felt and made quite a few of the criminals in the industry nervous.
Thanks Amir for giving us this platform to argue back with real science and evidence against the fantasy world that has led the industry. For a couple decades the objective community was ridiculed, silenced and banned from putting out our facts
I don't know where we would be now without the leverage we gained from free, honest discussions, along with some great use of humor, here.
The BIG MONEY was stacked against us.

Can it really be 3 decades or more since Peter wrote these words?
"The gullibility of audiophiles is what astonishes me the most, even after all these years. How is it possible, how did it ever happen, that they trust fairy-tale purveyors and mystic gurus more than reliable sources of scientific information? "Peter Aczel"

 

[majingotan]

Got to demo the newest Topping Stack this weekend! Heck I can’t tell the sonic difference between the D90 1-bit discrete + A90 discrete and their upcoming Topping D900/A900 stack through my Hifiman Susvara on sighted listening

However, looks wise, I’m willing to spend the extra dough on the D900/A900 stack! It’s a beaut in person to my tastes

 

[Tinker]

So you listen to others’ opinions and impressions instead of facts?
This is not reasonable, in audio and anywhere else.
Trust but verify.

Nope. I never said anything like that.

 

[Jim Taylor]

Nope. I never said anything like that.

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.

www.audiosciencereview.com

... first sentence.

Jim

 

[Galliardist]

Nope. I never said anything like that.

Except...

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.

It seems this post and its first sentence has been quoted back at you already. By now, surely even you must realise that you posted it? It was only 36 hours or so ago, you must have some idea...

 

[Tinker]

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.

www.audiosciencereview.com

... first sentence.

Jim

My quote: "I listen to some reviews based on listening impressions and personal opinions instead of purely science based facts."

The accusation is attempting to say that I ONLY listen to others opinions and disregard science. That's NOT true and is not what I said or implied. Come on! In fact, just a few sentences later I mention science as #1 consideration.

My quote: "I believe there are three important evaluations to consider. #1. science" Why not mention that?

 

[Tinker]

Except...

It seems this post and its first sentence has been quoted back at you already. By now, surely even you must realise that you posted it? It was only 36 hours or so ago, you must have some idea...

Sorry for the confusion. The accusation that I only listen to opinion and disregard science is completely false. Some REVIEWS I sometimes listen to are based on subjective opinions rather than science. Yes. that's true BUT this does NOT mean that's all I listen to and that I am disregarding science. Did you miss a few sentences later I said science is #1 evaluation to consider?

 

[Galliardist]

Sorry for the confusion. The accusation that I only listen to opinion and disregard science is completely false. Some REVIEWS I sometimes listen to are based on subjective opinions rather than science. Yes. that's true BUT this does NOT mean that's all I listen to and that I am disregarding science. Did you miss a few sentences later I said science is #1 evaluation to consider?

Yes, I did see that. However, if you also report things in the same post like

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.

... then you don't seem to be putting science (as explained to you by others) at number 1. Now, that's fine for your personal preferences. But you do not seem to be getting the message that the "ears" thing is as likely to be about your perception as the actual sound waves in the room. As for a speaker measuring "perfectly flat", not only do I doubt "perfectly", but there are more aspects to the speaker than FR, as you can see from any reviews here, or the associated video on how to understand the measurements.

If you want to have science as your #1, don't you think you should learn the science you profess to use? Too many people here think that SINAD = science... there's more to it.

 

[solderdude]

Sorry for the confusion. The accusation that I only listen to opinion and disregard science is completely false. Some REVIEWS I sometimes listen to are based on subjective opinions rather than science. Yes. that's true BUT this does NOT mean that's all I listen to and that I am disregarding science. Did you miss a few sentences later I said science is #1 evaluation to consider?

Nothing wrong with using the ears to evaluate but... use the proper techniques and controls. This is difficult and very time consuming and requires specialist gear so no one really does that. This means it is pretty safe to assume it is merely an opinion and should not be seen as facts.
Most of the 'more subjective' reviews simply lack that and for that reason will be dismissed by most ASR regulars.
That does not mean there can be some helpful things in those reviews.
The difficult part (for most readers/viewers) is how to correctly separate fact and fiction from the reviewer's vented opinion.
A good example is grandpa Paul ... and Hans Beekhuizen to name but two and forums like SBAF. Some facts and nonsense/opinions/whatever readers/viewers love to hear that fits their own view/findings all rolled into one.

Reading other people's opinions and subjective findings obtained in non controlled 'tests/comparisons' simply is not the way to go.
It is highly likely to be riddled with opinions/myths and biassed convictions rather than hard facts.

Sure, some of these reviews highlight 'feel of the volume control, switches and some usage aspects which might be helpful. The 'acoustic' properties that equipment might have (excluding transducers) is just silly talk.
That's what this back and forth is all about.
Your opinion simply is not considered a fact even though it is a fact/correct way for you.

 

[ahofer]

Well hmm. Amir has done a lot of ear training (in the audio, if not music theory, sense). If he, for instance, said he walked in to an exhibition room at an audio show and thought the sound was inaccurate in some way, I would take that into account. The issue isn't whether people hear something so much as *why*. There are a million reasons one can like or dislike or take issue with sound. It could have been the room, the recording, something in the chain, some background noise.....or entirely in one's head. So I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that it was the equipment being advertised in that room.

The problem with the vast majority of subjective audio commentary in this industry is that it describes all sorts of sensations, but attributes them to specific equipment. Even when this is incredibly unlikely.

Here's one of the first things I googled:

dCS Vivaldi Apex D/A processor

"Roberta Flack has Lou Gehrig's disease and can no longer sing," Béla, my visiting friend, yelled from the guest bedroom. The news rekindled in me the same mixture of sadness and foreboding I get every time I read about the decline or death of an iconic musician who rose to fame during my...

www.stereophile.com

In this article we go from highly subjective perceptions, very likely just the result of paying attention in a different way, straight to the allegedly revolutionary D/A processing. What I really object to is the reviewer making that trip without even a nod to other possible causes. But the industry demands it (with its advertising dollars). Such a mess.

 

[AdrianusG]

Well hmm. Amir has done a lot of ear training (in the audio, if not music theory, sense). If he, for instance, said he walked in to an exhibition room at an audio show and thought the sound was inaccurate in some way, I would take that into account. The issue isn't whether people hear something so much as *why*. There are a million reasons one can like or dislike or take issue with sound. It could have been the room, the recording, something in the chain, some background noise.....or entirely in one's head. So I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that it was the equipment being advertised in that room.

The problem with the vast majority of subjective audio commentary in this industry is that it describes all sorts of sensations, but attributes them to specific equipment. Even when this is incredibly unlikely.

Here's one of the first things I googled:

dCS Vivaldi Apex D/A processor

"Roberta Flack has Lou Gehrig's disease and can no longer sing," Béla, my visiting friend, yelled from the guest bedroom. The news rekindled in me the same mixture of sadness and foreboding I get every time I read about the decline or death of an iconic musician who rose to fame during my...

www.stereophile.com

In this article we go from highly subjective perceptions, very likely just the result of paying attention in a different way, straight to the allegedly revolutionary D/A processing. What I really object to is the reviewer making that trip without even a nod to other possible causes. But the industry demands it (with its advertising dollars). Such a mess.

"allegedly revolutionary D/A processing"

Well it should be if you paid $90.000 for a DAC (system) don't you think

 

[Roland68]

"allegedly revolutionary D/A processing"

Well it should be if you paid $90.000 for a DAC (system) don't you think

Also say whether it is ........... revolutionary...
- complex
- sophisticated
- innovative
- over-developed
- unbelievable
- expensive

 

[multichannel_guy]

Late question and things may have moved on,, but are you sure it's not the amp/speaker issues/room causing fatigue with so-called'accurate' dacs?

I mean and apologies for going off on a tangent, I fullt 'get' what many audiophiles prefer about the different presentation of the vinyl format, but in my case it's from the opposite end, me trying to liven up and have more 'sparkle' from my vinyl rig rather than 'toning down' the digital (and somewhere between, my FM tuner) to match the slightly 'gentler' vinyl presentation.

No, everything else was kept the same...only the dac changed.

I don't deal with vinyl or tape, zero interest in such analog formats..digital only.

 

[DSJR]

No, everything else was kept the same...only the dac changed.

I don't deal with vinyl or tape, zero interest in such analog formats..digital only.

You know, this may be why many speaker designers prefer to put a slight recess in the lower kHz response, to aid what I can best describe as 'listening comfort.' I mean, our ears are hardly flat in receptivity and they change with perceived loudness as well, so a ruler-flat response speaker, wide directivity and played in a lively domestic environment may cause intense discomfort when reproducing a dynamic piece of music.

Just a hunch above, which may have nothing to do with your situation

 

[Purité Audio]

Lifted H/F is much more likely to be uncomfortable .
Keith

 

[Ken1951]

Well hmm. Amir has done a lot of ear training (in the audio, if not music theory, sense). If he, for instance, said he walked in to an exhibition room at an audio show and thought the sound was inaccurate in some way, I would take that into account. The issue isn't whether people hear something so much as *why*. There are a million reasons one can like or dislike or take issue with sound. It could have been the room, the recording, something in the chain, some background noise.....or entirely in one's head. So I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that it was the equipment being advertised in that room.

The problem with the vast majority of subjective audio commentary in this industry is that it describes all sorts of sensations, but attributes them to specific equipment. Even when this is incredibly unlikely.

Here's one of the first things I googled:

dCS Vivaldi Apex D/A processor

"Roberta Flack has Lou Gehrig's disease and can no longer sing," Béla, my visiting friend, yelled from the guest bedroom. The news rekindled in me the same mixture of sadness and foreboding I get every time I read about the decline or death of an iconic musician who rose to fame during my...

www.stereophile.com

In this article we go from highly subjective perceptions, very likely just the result of paying attention in a different way, straight to the allegedly revolutionary D/A processing. What I really object to is the reviewer making that trip without even a nod to other possible causes. But the industry demands it (with its advertising dollars). Such a mess.

Man, that's some high-level word/phrase craziness there.