• 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?

. I find it interesting that there are so many people genuinely hearing a difference ...

Remove the word "genuinely" and in its place insert the word "supposedly", and the statement will be correct.

In the past, there were abilities that were considered genuine ... scrying tea leaves or goat entrails, for instance. The people who did this considered their abilities as genuine, the leaders to whom they reported considered the abilities as genuine, and even the population at large believed the abilities to be genuine. These people were held in the highest regard, so much so that their words determined the fates of kings and emperors. To gainsay them was considered heresy or insulting, and could get you executed.

That pretty well describes the Subjectivist faction of audio even today. Their unfounded and uncontrolled opinions regarding hearing are no more "genuine" than the ability to foresee the future in a goat's guts.

Science long ago proved superstition, divination and voodoo were just based on ignorance. Through the efforts of untold numbers of scientists, we now have a better idea what is real, what is true, what is usable and what is not. It's time the audio community sees the same light.

“The root of all superstition is that men observe when a thing hits, but not when it misses.”
Francis Bacon
 
Without contradicting anyone here, it's worth pointing out that "inaudible" frequencies can have psychological effects. To the extent that double-blinded DACs might be perceived as sounding different (and I'm not claiming these necessarily exist), this phenomenon might be a contributing reason.

 
Without contradicting anyone here, it's worth pointing out that "inaudible" frequencies can have psychological effects. To the extent that double-blinded DACs might be perceived as sounding different (and I'm not claiming these necessarily exist), this phenomenon might be a contributing reason.

Oohashi. :facepalm: Let’s just say that it’s not exactly accepted as correct.
 
That's not really a response based on science. Can you cite a well-researched rebuttal?
I also found that research a few months ago and was also excited at the time. The study has never been replicated and has no good basis to support the findings. Look a little deeper, it's not good science.
 
Remove the word "genuinely" and in its place insert the word "supposedly", and the statement will be correct.
I disagree. They are genuinly hearing a difference. It is just that difference is generated in the brain.

If you object to "hear", taking the view that involves ears only, rather than the full auditory system, you could replace "hear" with "perceive"
 
I disagree. They are genuinly hearing a difference. It is just that difference is generated in the brain.

Point taken. However, for the purposes of the comparison that I made with superstitions, I think the change in wording is sufficient, even if imperfect. Agreed? :)
 
Last edited:
They're hyperfocusing on particular sound characteristics after the component swap, then accepting it as an actual difference from the first component, but in reality the same
characteristics were present with the first component
 
They're hyperfocusing on particular sound characteristics after the component swap, then accepting it as an actual difference from the first component, but in reality the same
characteristics were present with the first component
That's why Bias Controlled DBT is required.
After hearing the improved detail, etc on first listening, but then going back and forth under blind conditions, the
listener realizes that same detail was there all along.
 
That's not really a response based on science. Can you cite a well-researched rebuttal?
Oohashi has been beaten to death here. It's utter nutbaggery, incapable of replication except by Oohashi and his students. A quick forum search will (one hopes) save you from running down that rabbit hole.
 
As I have gotten more into the hobby like everyone else I have read and seen endless commentary around DAC signatures. From the start it has always been impossible for me to notice any difference between DACs. Indeed, every DAC I have have trialed at home or at audio meetups must have been audibly transparent because I have never heard a difference. I initially thought I might have some problem with my hearing or that there might be variability across humans in their ability to interpret sound. There are variabilities in ear and ear canal shape so why can't there be differences between how how one person's brain interprets sound versus another?

I initially felt like an outlier, and this site was helpful in parsing through the BS. I find it interesting that there are so many people genuinely hearing a difference when even if I try I cannot. And I count it as a blessing as it's likely going to save money which I can devote to things that actually do make a difference like better speakers!

One other point around DAC signatures has also struck me as odd. Even if you submit DACs have different sound signatures, surely the setup of your listening area and your speaker selection will be many multiples more impactful than the DAC right? If a well-measured DAC has a THD of 0.0005% and a well-constructed speaker has 0.5% across most of the frequency spectrum, the speaker's distortion on the sound signature is 10,000x times the DAC's no? And even the speaker's distortion pales in comparison to whether the washing machine is running in the kitchen above my listening room! How could a DAC's signature EVER matter when the scale of impact we are talking about is so small relative to the other links in the audio chain?
And also the recording itself almost any DAC is better than album you play ! It especially funny when someone uses a Jazz recording from 1960 to “reveal” differences in texture and timbre of the DAC :D

Currently I don’t have the slightest idea what terrible DAC’s and abomination for amps I enjoy as I have active digital speakers :)
They sounds just great the KEF LS60 .

Same with my previous Meridian DSP5000 not the slightest idea of what DAC I was “listening” to .
 
Oohashi has been beaten to death here. It's utter nutbaggery, incapable of replication except by Oohashi and his students. A quick forum search will (one hopes) save you from running down that rabbit hole.
That's not really a response based on science. Can you cite a well-researched rebuttal?
Perhaps to save you one of those searches:

 
Perhaps to save you one of those searches:

Thanks. And I understand the antipathy toward the Oohashi "research" that appears to have been pretty thoroughly discredited by knowledgeable professionals, though it's perhaps worth noting that he and his colleagues have had followup research published in Nature on several occasions. But it's important to remember that a flawed study suggesting that ultrasonic frequencies can have psychological effects doesn't mean that they DO NOT EVER have such effects.

Obviously our Department of Defense continues to investigate this phenomenon and its possible implications relative to the Havana Syndrome. There are many who believe that the Havana Syndrome is a hoax, surely. There are also many who believe otherwise. I think it's clear that the science relating to human response to sonic waves outside the frequency range characterized as audible does not qualify as a "solved problem." And that's all I mean to say or imply here.
 
Thanks. And I understand the antipathy toward the Oohashi "research" that appears to have been pretty thoroughly discredited by knowledgeable professionals, though it's perhaps worth noting that he and his colleagues have had followup research published in Nature on several occasions. But it's important to remember that a flawed study suggesting that ultrasonic frequencies can have psychological effects doesn't mean that they DO NOT EVER have such effects.

Obviously our Department of Defense continues to investigate this phenomenon and its possible implications relative to the Havana Syndrome. There are many who believe that the Havana Syndrome is a hoax, surely. There are also many who believe otherwise. I think it's clear that the science relating to human response to sonic waves outside the frequency range characterized as audible does not qualify as a "solved problem." And that's all I mean to say or imply here.
Kinda out there one way or the other with information at hand....
 
doesn't mean that they DO NOT EVER have such effects.
The statement "all things are possible" regretfully omits the qualifier "but most of those possibilities - in the absence of evidence to the contrary - are so low in probability that they can be safely ignored.

In other words there is no point in considering possibilities or conjectures for which there is no reliable evidence or observations supporting them. That way lies Russell's teapot.

Or put it another way. Anyone can invent out of thin air an infinity of evidence free things that might be possible. Are we really going to waste a shred of effort thinking about any of them? Let alone all of them.
 
Last edited:
The statement "all things are possible" regretfully omits the statement "but most of those possibilities - in the absense of evidence to the contrary - are so low in probability that they can be safely ignored.

In other words there is no point in considering possibilities or conjectures for which there is no reliable evidence or observations supporting them. That way lies Russell's teapot.

Or put it another way. Anyone can invent out of thin air an infinity of evidence free things that might be possible. Are we really going to waste a shred of effort thinking about any of them? Let alone all of them.
Nice
 
Obviously our Department of Defense continues to investigate this phenomenon and its possible implications relative to the Havana Syndrome.
Ultrasound beamed into someone's skull at sufficient amplitude to cause injury is ... with any luck... out of scope for home music listeners. ;)
I think it's clear that the science relating to human response to sonic waves outside the frequency range characterized as audible does not qualify as a "solved problem."
Depends on what you mean by "solved", but it's close.

Even if you assume we can hear as well at 40khz as we do at 20khz (we don't, but if we did) most ultrasonic content in music recordings would be inaudible even if it was reproduced perfectly. Instruments don't generally produce a ton of ultrasound in the first place.
 
If every DAC truly sounds different (have their own sound signature), we are in big trouble. :(

This means once the original analog data is converted into digital data, the same digital data is now going to convert to all sorts of audibly different analog signals because every DAC sounds different. :eek:

How can people store the precious analog sound into digital data to destroy the music? Now the true music is forever lost because every DAC sounds different. ;)
 
If every DAC truly sounds different (have their own sound signature), we are in big trouble. :(

This means once the original analog data is converted into digital data, the same digital data is now going to convert to all sorts of audibly different analog signals because every DAC sounds different. :eek:

How can people store the precious analog sound into digital data to destroy the music? Now the true music is forever lost because every DAC sounds different. ;)
it's getting worse we have ADC so you cant record anything really :D
 
If every DAC truly sounds different (have their own sound signature), we are in big trouble. :(

This means once the original analog data is converted into digital data, the same digital data is now going to convert to all sorts of audibly different analog signals because every DAC sounds different. :eek:

How can people store the precious analog sound into digital data to destroy the music? Now the true music is forever lost because every DAC sounds different. ;)
Hang on though. Back when we only had vinyl, every turntable/arm/cartridge sounded different.

And that’s not changed today, really. So how can people store this precious sound in analogue?:facepalm:
 
Back
Top Bottom