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

[MaxBuck]

Now seems like a good time to thank Amir for choosing this forum design, which directs the reader automatically to the first unread post in a thread. Makes it easy to discover what new silliness someone is trying to perpetuate.

 

[Old_School_Brad]

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.

You often claim you didn’t say or mean certain things, but I’m as confused as @Haskil.
Your position is unclear, and with each post, it feels like you're constantly shifting between moving forward and backtracking. It seems like you're only interested in getting a reaction..

 

[Haskil]

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.

A question is asked and it's a serious question: "how can DACs have a SOUND SIGNATURE if they are transparent?"
What do you just have to answer to this question which is the only one asked here...

 

[Haskil]

You often claim you didn’t say or mean certain things, but I’m as confused as @Haskil.
Your position is unclear, and with each post, it feels like you're constantly shifting between moving forward and backtracking. It seems like you're only interested in getting a reaction..

Yes, it is nevertheless simple to answer the question asked at the top of the discussion.

But our friend prefers Jesuistic responses which are, however, neither casuistry nor maieutics from which light could spring.

In short, he's tinkering and like you I think he's looking for reactions and maybe he even signed up specifically for that.

 

[TLEDDY]

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

Rosenhan experiment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

WOW… just WOW!

In a past life I worked with inpatients at a military hospital psych unit. We recognized that, in a very few cases, soldiers feigned their illnesses. The vast majority of them were genuinely ill from their experiences in Vietnam. The impetus was to return the soldiers to active duty and I suspect that some were discharged still being treated in an outpatient setting. Certainly a different milieu than civilian institutions.

There is nothing easy in diagnosing psychiatric illnesses; when a patient presents with auditory hallucination, the clinician really has to believe that to be truthful. The real challenge is determining whether the symptoms have ceased and the patient is ready to return to normal functioning in the real world.

 

[VientoB]

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.

Also if they are making money from "hearing a difference", as people like Darko are, there is no incentive to admit to either themselves or anyone else that there is no difference.

 

[krabapple]

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

Of course we do. But we can be aware of their flaws, and take them into considertion when drawing conclusions. And making public claims about something's sound.

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.

So what? As long as you don't claim something about the DAC's objective performance -- which is what gets measured and which can be related to what humans can hear, another thing that can be measured ---- you're simply expressing a subjective preference...with all the biases that are built into that. It could bear no relation to the DAC's actual performance.

So don't expect anyone here to care. It's not useful information re: 'audio science'. It's just, like, your opinion, man.

 

[krabapple]

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.

Do you plan at some point to tell us something we don't know?

No one cares what your* preference is. The only issue arises is when you make fact claims about the product, based simply on sighted preference.
Unless properly qualified with an acknowledgement of the role of bias, even saying that A 'sounds better' than B is a fact claim -- it asserts that A and B produce sound that is different to an audible degree. And yes, that means the difference must be measurable, and of a magnitude above human thresholds of hearing.

*generic you

 

[krabapple]

Now seems like a good time to thank Amir for choosing this forum design, which directs the reader automatically to the first unread post in a thread. Makes it easy to discover what new silliness someone is trying to perpetuate.

But it's not new silliness, is it? It's the same old silliness.

 

[ahofer]

It always helps to clarify one's claims. In this case I'm confused as to whether there is a claim that there is something a)audible that can't be measured b) audible and measurable but isn't generally measured, or c)something not strictly audible that affects the listening experience

In any event, my response to the three propositions is a) no, b) possibly and c) definitely.

But my hypothesis is that the (c) type is non-stationary and therefore both unreliable and a major source of the audio equipment treadmill.

 

[ahofer]

There is nothing easy in diagnosing psychiatric illnesses

Definitely part of the problem, but inevitably an opening for biases to creep in.

 

[Tinker]

It always helps to clarify one's claims. In this case I'm confused as to whether there is a claim that there is something a)audible that can't be measured b) audible and measurable but isn't generally measured, or c)something not strictly audible that affects the listening experience

In any event, my response to the three propositions is a) no, b) possibly and c) definitely.

But my hypothesis that the (c) type is non-stationary and therefore both unreliable and a major source of the audio equipment treadmill.

Bingo! I would add... C. is unreliable and a major source of treadmill, you are correct, but it DOES exist in the mind of that listener or reviewer. The bias phenomenon is as real as anything else. This is not exclusive to the audio industry. Manufacturers in every industry 'romance' their products to some extent. This obviously doesn't sit well with the 'science only crowd' but that's the way it is. It's up to the buyer to do their 'due diligence'. ASR is a great place to start their research.

I also appreciate some subjective reviews that bring to my attention products that I may never heard of. I don't see a need to censor them because they are 'subjective'. I like a little 'romance'. It makes the experience more fun and exciting and that is a FACT.

 

[antcollinet]

but it DOES exist in the mind of that listener or reviewer

Until it doesn't. This is also the nature of the unreliability. It is not only unreliable from one person to another - it is unreliable over time for the individual.

 

[BDWoody]

unreliable and a major source of treadmill, you are correct, but it DOES exist in the mind of that listener or reviewer.

Seems to be a good reason to try to find out what is actually based on sound waves, rather than whatever might be going on with the reviewer that day. Let's hope he didn't get in a fight with his wife before the review, or maybe didn't get enough sleep, or any number of unrelated things that might get in the way.

You seem to think that's the fun part, which is fine, but you also seem to be telling us we're missing out by focusing on what might be considered data, rather than anecdote.

 

[Tinker]

Seems to be a good reason to try to find out what is actually based on sound waves, rather than whatever night be going on with the reviewer that day. Let's hope he didn't get in a fight with his wife before the review, or maybe didn't get enough sleep, or any number of unrelated things that might get in the way.

You seem to think that's the fun part, which is fine, but you also seem to be telling us we're missing out by focusing on what might be considered data, rather than anecdote.

The sound waves are important but information other than data may be gleaned through subjective reviews. If you think that's impossible and closed to the idea then you'll never know what you might have missed. If you don't like it, fine then don't listen but don't try to censor it and deny me/others from hearing it. There're people here that would like to do just that. They think subjective romance is NOT ok. Trying to protect people from themselves, making bad decisions and financial harm is the agenda.

Thanks for caring so much but I'd rather filter out the BS on my own. I don't need more rules and regulations from the 'Audio Police' to help protect me.

 

[JustJones]

I can't think of anything I've gleaned from a subjective review about a DAC. Maybe the reviewer liked the looks?

 

[IPunchCholla]

information other than data

Is that like a 4 sided triangle?

 

[Tinker]

Do you plan at some point to tell us something we don't know?

Hmmm. I need to ask my Magic 8 ball for the answer to this one... wait. Need to spin it 3 times or it doesn't work. You know that!

Sorry Krabby

 

[VientoB]

I can't think of anything I've gleaned from a subjective review about a DAC. Maybe the reviewer liked the looks?

I used to enjoy subjective review, however in the last couple of years I've become more and more sceptical to the point where I can really sense than the reviewers are just almost going through the motions each time and there's nothing of substance there at all.

 

[Jim Taylor]

The sound waves are important but information other than data may be gleaned through subjective reviews. If you think that's impossible and closed to the idea then you'll never know what you might have missed. If you don't like it, fine then don't listen but don't try to censor it and deny me/others from hearing it. There're people here that would like to do just that. They think subjective romance is NOT ok. Trying to protect people from themselves, making bad decisions and financial harm is the agenda.

Thanks for caring so much but I'd rather filter out the BS on my own. I don't need more rules and regulations from the 'Audio Police' to help protect me.

1) If you want to believe in the Gospel of Subjectivism, there is no one here who can stop you .... and as far as I know, no one will try. Nor should they; there is no gainsaying preference.

However, if you have come here to spread the Gospel of Subjectivism and proselytize us, that is totally different. You can expect some pushback from that, and some rational criticism. This is, after all, a site dedicated to principles of science and engineering, not feelings and emotion. In that sense, no one is trying to protect YOU from anything at all. Members here have an interest in informing OTHER people about what is posted on this site.

2) It is impossible to deny you or others form hearing "it" or anything else. You also cannot know what other people would like to do, or what they would not like to do. This includes other people's thoughts on "subjective romance". These accusations are a canard.

3) We know full well that you can filter out what you consider b.s. "on your own". However, we try to make sure that other people reading these pages have the full information they need to filter out any and all b.s. to which they are exposed ..... including yours.

It is popular today to play the victim card through exaggeration and accusation. It is, however, rather transparent and unbecoming. It gains you nothing to employ it, not in form nor in substance.

Jim