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

[NTTY]

Food for thoughts...

This is 1kHz @-6dBFS from an old Marantz CD4000:

And this is the same 1kHz @-6dBFS from an AH! Njoe Tjoeb 4000 CD player which is a clone of the Marantz with a tube output stage:

Tubes might need some attention (it will be done soon).

Now, fun fact, recording from the two players (at 24bits/48kHz) and playing back with Foobar ABX, a friend, my son and I failed to make a difference between the two (track was the same as the one used in the Klippel audio test).

Cheers

 

[Blumlein 88]

Food for thoughts...

This is 1kHz @-6dBFS from an old Marantz CD4000:

View attachment 396143

And this is the same 1kHz @-6dBFS from an AH! Njoe Tjoeb 4000 CD player which is a clone of the Marantz with a tube output stage:

View attachment 396144

Tubes might need some attention (it will be done soon).

Now, fun fact, recording from the two players (at 24bits/96kHz) and playing back with Foobar ABX, a friend, my son and I failed to make a difference between the two (track was the same as the one used in the Klippel audio test).

Cheers

Using music that is not too surprising.

 

[DonH56]

For decades 1% distortion was considered high fidelity based on early tests showing people could not distinguish distortion in music below that level. 1% is -40 dB. People claim 0.1% detection for pure sine waves (-60 dB), but last time I tried, that was pretty difficult in blind testing. It was years ago but I think I was just above the 50% correct level.

 

[ahofer]

For anyone who thinks they are immune to confirmation bias, consider this:

Rosenhan experiment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[JeremyFife]

For anyone who thinks they are immune to confirmation bias, consider this:

Rosenhan experiment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Do you mean that the hospital staff are demonstrating confirmation bias because 'pseudopatients' pretended to have mental health symptoms and the hospitals admitted them? It's an interesting study, ethically as much as anything else, but I don't think its useful for us. Far too much to get lost in.

 

[ahofer]

Do you mean that the hospital staff are demonstrating confirmation bias because 'pseudopatients' pretended to have mental health symptoms and the hospitals admitted them? It's an interesting study, ethically as much as anything else, but I don't think its useful for us. Far too much to get lost in.

You may have missed when they reversed the experiment and *said* they were sending in fake patients but didn’t…and the institutions confidently identified the fakes.

It’s relevant because one of the common ideas in this thread is that the listeners are skilled and careful and can’t fool themselves. But highly skilled professionals do it readily.

Not sure why you felt it necessary to police the relevance of the experiment, but there it is.

 

[JeremyFife]

You may have missed when they reversed the experiment and *said* they were sending in fake patients but didn’t…and the institutions confidently identified the fakes.

It’s relevant because one of the common ideas in this thread is that the listeners are skilled and careful and can’t fool themselves. But highly skilled professionals do it readily.

Not sure why you felt it necessary to police the relevance of the experiment, but there it is.

Not 'policing' the relevance or anything else about the experiment. It's interesting and well documented.

Just saying that the complexities of diagnosing mental health disorders, while clearly open to confirmation bias errors as well as many other issues, cloud the picture. it would be easy for someone to get distracted by the complexities of the issues in that study and try to use them to disregard confirmation bias in audio. Or perhaps it wouldn't and that's just my view.

Listening to audio equipment is a much simpler affair, is absolutely affected by confirmation bias (and other biases) and it's strange how much resistance there is to accepting that. Not by you, no implication intended there.

 

[Old_School_Brad]

Not 'policing' the relevance or anything else about the experiment. It's interesting and well documented.

Just saying that the complexities of diagnosing mental health disorders, while clearly open to confirmation bias errors as well as many other issues, cloud the picture. it would be easy for someone to get distracted by the complexities of the issues in that study and try to use them to disregard confirmation bias in audio. Or perhaps it wouldn't and that's just my view.

Listening to audio equipment is a much simpler affair, is absolutely affected by confirmation bias (and other biases) and it's strange how much resistance there is to accepting that. Not by you, no implication intended there.

It is strange. I can't chalk it up to ignorance. Could it be pride?

 

[JeremyFife]

It is strange. I can't chalk it up to ignorance. Could it be pride?

It's powerful too, perhaps the catch-all of Cognitive Dissonance where our own brains bend our perception of reality and we seem simply helpless.
There is ignorance, until we know. Some of us are prideful and that's just us. 'Group norming' and the social pressure to be part of a tribe is powerful.
It's hard to ignore what our senses are telling us, that one item sounds better than another, even when we *know* how unlikely that is

 

[Tinker]

It's hard to ignore what our senses are telling us, that one item sounds better than another, even when we *know* how unlikely that is

Great point. Using our senses can't be ignored. I think we all do it.

Based only on science, if you're looking for a new DAC then simply go to the review list and pick the one with the best measurements. Look no further. This should guarantee a pleasurable listening experience? This starts to crumble when other factors come in to play.

Measurements and experience don't always correlate that well in real world practice. Especially when you find something you like better that doesn't top the charts.

 

[Old_School_Brad]

Great point. Using our senses can't be ignored. I think we all do it.

Based only on science, if you're looking for a new DAC then simply go to the review list and pick the one with the best measurements. Look no further. This should guarantee a pleasurable listening experience? This starts to crumble when other factors come in to play.

This approach will definitely provide you with completely transparent sound, if that's what you're after.
I used a Chromecast Audio dongle, sitting in my closet for almost ten years, taped to the side, connected to the rest of my system, and it consistently delivered a satisfying listening experience.

 

[Jim Taylor]

Measurements and experience don't always correlate that well in real world practice. Especially when you find something you like better that doesn't top the charts.

As I have said before, tests and measurements aren't there to show us what is best. They're there to show us what is unacceptable.

Finding audio equipment that you like is like marriage. It's no problem for you to think that you have the best spouse in the world. The problem comes when you start telling your neighbors that you know yours is better than theirs. That's when the fighting starts ....

Jim

 

[Purité Audio]

Just re-iterating but I think it important one at least knows what transparent sounds like before one goes for ‘effects’.
Keith

 

[MAB]

Great point. Using our senses can't be ignored. I think we all do it.

Based only on science, if you're looking for a new DAC then simply go to the review list and pick the one with the best measurements. Look no further. This should guarantee a pleasurable listening experience? This starts to crumble when other factors come in to play.

You seem to limit 'science' to measurements of electrical properties. Measurements aren't science, but you keep pressing this assertion. You ignore the scientific studies of what people can and can't hear. And studies of what people prefer in reproduced sound. You seem to be on an anti-science path, by confusing measurements with science, and then limiting the scope of science to measurements alone. It is either naïve or disingenuous.

Measurements and experience don't always correlate that well in real world practice. Especially when you find something you like better that doesn't top the charts.

I think you are confused on the relationship of science to measurements and then measurements to perception, and this causes you to think that chart-topping measurements are the only criteria.

 

[Tinker]

You seem to be on an anti-science path, by confusing measurements with science, and then limiting the scope of science to measurements alone. It is either naïve or disingenuous.

No. That's not true. You've incorrectly made up your mind. You're experiencing a negative bias against anything I say and missed the point completely.

 

[solderdude]

Best measurements does not guarantee you will like what you hear but does guarantee optimal signal fidelity.

Measurements and experience don't always correlate that well in real world practice. Especially when you find something you like better that doesn't top the charts.

When you can't find a clear relation between signal fidelity and your preference just accept that this is just your preference and this may or may not have a relation to measurements.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

Measurements and experience don't always correlate that well in real world practice. Especially when you find something you like better that doesn't top the charts

The kit that measures best will reproduce the original recording as accurately as possible. Other than transducers or overworked power amplifiers there is almost total certainty that neither you nor anyone else can hear anything that distinguishes the music through one piece of kit that measures extremely well versus another piece of kit that measures extremely well.

If you don't like the sound, then you don't like the way the artists recorded their music or you don't like the way mastering engineers created the final product. That's fine. In the old days, that is why tone controls were invented. This is a much more controlled way of dealing with unbalanced recordings than randomly swapping bits of inaccurate kit.

 

[Haskil]

No. That's not true. You've incorrectly made up your mind. You're experiencing a negative bias against anything I say and missed the point completely.

The problem is that many of us do not fully understand the substance of what you are saying.

So we look at the title of this discussion: "Serious question: how can DACs have a SOUND SIGNATURE if they are transparent? Are many confused?"
And there, the answer is unambiguous: they cannot have a sound signature if they are transparent.

Now, if you tell us that it is possible to prefer a DAC that is not transparent to one that is: no problem... It is your strictest right to prefer it. But the measurement will explain why, it sounds different from the transparent Dac.

We have a very clear example of this with the RIAA phono stages, some of which deviate by several dB from the ideal curve of this standard for recording LPs... And yes, a slight lift here or there can give an enjoyable sound. .. Same with certain distortions which can also be emulated in a computer program.

In short, if there are a few of us who do not understand you, it is because your statement is much more than ambiguous... and we prefer not to understand that you want to insinuate that the measurements say "nothing" about the quality of the sound coming out of a DAC even if they are all beyond the threshold of audibility defects.

 

[Tinker]

In short, if there are a few of us who do not understand you, it is because your statement is much more than ambiguous... and we prefer not to understand that you want to insinuate that the measurements say "nothing" about the quality of the sound coming out of a DAC even if they are all beyond the threshold of audibility defects.

I never said that the measurements say "nothing" about the quality of the sound. I said the opposite. First on my list to consider, THE MOST IMPORTANT THING FOR ME TO LOOK AT is Amir's review. That should be pretty clear to understand and I really don't get the confusion. Maybe it's because you and others "Prefer not to understand".

I also did NOT say that that science or measurements are the only thing to consider. Humans are affected by other criteria as well. Their perception of a product CAN be swayed by color or size or shape or price etc... To many people a higher priced unit MUST be better quality parts and render a better sound. Many will say...a $10,000 dac is certainly better sound than a $200 dac. I know... Amir has proven this is not true many times but you can't deny this bias exists.

The food industry also knows this bias very well. The 'science' of flavor works visual bias (red dye makes drinks taste more like cherry and so on). They use this to their advantage to sell more product but it also DOES make the drink more appealing, taste better and MORE EJOYABLE to most people even though it's fake!

Some people like products being pinned as 'snake oil'. To them the sound is better so it's a better product for them.! So what if they're happy with it? I see NO harm done if the customer is pleased with the product.

 

[solderdude]

One problem is that such expensive gear and snake-oil is not really better. It is just bias/preference but presented by people as a fact. The preference is a fact... sounding better is not. It is that just for them for other reasons than the actual sound quality.

Another problem is that 'this or that' sounds 'better' in reviews/forums/magazines can persuade people to buy it because people say it 'sounds' better where it doesn't and they are basically being conned and persuaded to over-pay.
Not a big issue when it doesn't make a dent in one's wallet but it is if money is tight and still buy it because of 'the better sound'.

I have no problem with paying more for better looks/functionality/build quality/colored sound but this is not 'sounds better'. It may be to them but only because of bias.
The bias is not clear and others may not care about looks nor build quality (in the extreme), want colored sound someone else prefers or do not need certain functionality or connectivity or amount of power or channels.
These people are 'lured' into buying something that does not 'sound' better but is told by others it does.

So there is a potential (financial) harm in the 'subjective' reviews with 'sound description' of electronics like DACs (what this thread is about) and amps.
Of course, for transducers (including vinyl+cartridges+pre-amps) it is a different matter.

Telling people this or that DAC 'sounds better' when it objectively isn't but just is a 'bias' of an owner (or reviewer for whatever reason that may behind it) is not O.K.

Sure ... when people like it or even like actual different sound and are pleased with their purchase and find it is (well) worth what they paid for it there is no problem... in fact I am all for that. The question here is ... is because those people read/heard from someone it 'sounds heavenly' and is 'basically a bargain' or because they liked the product anyway and bought it for their own reasons and not being 'forced' into buying it by advertising/salespersons/reviews.