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

[Mulder]

But data collection ONLY is not science.

Ofcource not. That is exactly why I wrote "measurements are very much a part of science".

If it was, it would trivial to make excellent hearing helps and prosthetics. It's an area I keep an eye on as it has a different angle on the same subject.

But this is a field that involves medecin. It is not just about audio-electronics and acoustics.

And you may believe what you wish, that Santa Claus exists, that there is a giant Nazi UFO base on the south pole and a Nazi UFO base on the dark side of the moon and of course, that any fun loving subject of science is "a completely explored field.".

Non of these beliefs are "scientific". They are in fact religious.

Believing something is not by definition religion. Making it a matter of religion is rhetoric - it is not a fact. But I agree I do believe something here. I might be proven wrong. Everything valid is so in the context of an overal framework. The framework may change, but not necessarily the findings in the framework. I don´t believe - for example - any paradigm-shift will make Newton irrelevant.

You can only apply science if it is present. Science absent we are doing engineering by empiricism (which is precisely what I do) as I require certain results and the current state of science fails me in delivering them.

But your results are in a large part about subjectivity. If the goal in itself is about catching subjective perceptions, you are entering the field of psychoacoustics. You don´t need to explore in a scientific meaning what electronics do but how people react to audio-reproduction.

You mean no other subject of science is still considered unexplored or has unexplored areas?

No. Are you serious?

Seeing the recent work at Harman on frequency response (and directivity) preferences for Speakers and Headphones and the use of this of this knowledge at Harman to waive classic "High Fidelity" and to make products that people like the way the sound of suggests to me that there is a large space that remains unexplored.

This is applied science.

In the traditional sense frequency response is an "explored subject" since the 19'th century and possibly even earlier during the islamic golden age. How comes we "discover new things" and conclude that the green table "flat frequency response" is neither preferred nor natural sounding?

This is about psychoacoustics, i.e. perception and awareness.

 

[Thorsten Loesch]

I completed my tech University studies in electroacoustics in 1979 and directivity was never considered unimportant in those times.

What was considered the correct directivity for a domestic speaker system in 1979, by say Tesla in Czechsolvakia as embodied by an actually manufactured and sold domestic speaker?

Electrical current created by absolutely linear voltage across nonlinear impedance is of course nonlinear as well. Nothing new.

And Voltage created by linear current across a nonlinear impedance is of course nonlinear. Also nothing new.

Thor

 

[solderdude]

They do? I stated that in my case the only difference observable using traditional measurements was a change on HD (and the shape of the vary much hypersonic frequency response) but listeners expressed a preference for one of the two items. There is no belief here, just an observation.

Indeed just an observation, not science. Yet you consider it a fact without further exploration as to the why (ignoring the science).

I have observed that whatever is shown, if it is not an Audio ABX test it is invalid anyway and I find Audio ABX just way too prone to null results to even bother using it.

There is more to life than ABX and its applicability. Only taking someones temperature says little about someones health but it can show something is not right.

Like as a rule iFi's QC department had to run a loopback test on their gear every morning and test a "known good" sample of the device on the line that day, to make sure their equipment worked. Because otherwise the test is pointless, if you do not have actual, scientific confidence your test operates correctly.

Calibration is important when manufacturing or adjusting things to spec. Manufacturers that don't will surely exist.

I provided lists before. Most are not public domain but behind paywalls.

What was dismissed ? Were they controversial 'papers' that have been debunked by others in the meantime ? People that write papers can also write nonsense and publish them.

We all are always wrong to some degree, simply because perspectives differ. I am actually interested in different perspectives. Your perspective provided me some useful input for future occasions should they arise.

Likewise.. this is the advantage of a civilised conversation without alterior motives.

 

[Reynaldo]

However the ones who are wrong almost 100% are the ones that insist everything is black is and white and the other view must be "black" because they are "white".

I think that sums up a lot of this discussion.
Pretty much the same endless subject as the other thread.

Master Thread: Are measurements Everything or Nothing?

Seems like so many review threads get challenged with: 1. Measurements are not everything. 2. You all never listen. 3. I trust my ears, not graphs. 4. I don't listen to graphs. I listen to music. 5. You all must not listen to music at all. 6. Why don't you all buy the best SINAD gear? 7...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[Thorsten Loesch]

This is applied science.

This is about psychoacoustics, i.e. perception and awareness.

As is what I did. I have the feeling that what is being objected to here is less that fact that I did what I did and got results I got, but the fact that my results fail to support prevalent orthodox beliefs.

Much less well founded subjective observations from other sources that happen to agree with prevalent orthodox beliefs are not criticised for lacking controlled listening tests etc. instead they are lauded, by the same individuals that cannot stop trying the same old bum rap on me.

Let me be for once be explicit, which I normally do not do under "professional courtesy".

When Bruno Putzey claims:

": if you start with a decently sounding zero feedback amplifier and you add some feedback, it sounds somewhat opener in the bottom end but otherwise more unpleasant. The trend continues at least for the first 10dB to 20dB so one finds oneself compromising between musicality and something we’ll call “accuracy” for want of a better term."

"In a flight of fancy I set a friendly audio company in the south of the Netherlands on this by suggesting a method of wrapping almost 60dB of loop gain over the full audio range around a valve amplifier using a third order loop. Whenever it was stable it sounded immaculate. Measured rather well too."

This is accepted and repeated, instead of being criticised for not having been subject to a controlled listening test and being anecdotal evidence here.

Nobody calls it an "extraordinary claim" (actually, I DO!).

Nobody even questions what the Amplifier sounded like without extra 60dB NFB?

Perhaps also "immaculate" but "measured poorly"? Or perhaps it had "clog(ed) up the whole bottom end".

Where are the calls for evidence? Controls? Nothing.

Incidentally I know the full story behind this from a different discussion group where the principal of said company reported on this separately.

There is a bit more here than what was written. I'll leave it to those involved if they ever want to enlarge on this.

My take was that actually what was heard and corrected with the 60dB NFB had nothing really to do with the harmonic distortion from the tubes.

Thor

 

[Thorsten Loesch]

Indeed just an observation, not science. Yet you consider it a fact without further exploration as to the why (ignoring the science).

No. I will quote Robert Anthony Wilson here:

“Do you believe in UFOs?” somebody asked.

“Yes, of course,” I answered.

The questioner, who looked quite young, then burst into a long speech, “proving” at least to his own satisfaction that all UFOs “really are” sun-dogs or heat inversions. When he finally ran down I simply replied,

“Well, we both agree that UFOs exist. Our only difference is that you think you know what they are and I’m still puzzled.”

"Personally, I see two or three UFOs every week. This does not astonish me, or convince me of the spaceship theory, because I also see about 2 or 3 UNFOs every week — Unidentified Non-Flying Objects. These remain unidentified (by me) because they go by too fast or look so weird that I never know whether to classify them as hedgehogs, hobgoblins or helicopters — or as stars or satellites or spaceships — or as pookahs or pizza-trucks or probability waves. Of course, I also see things that I feel fairly safe in identifying as hedgehogs or stars or pizza trucks, but the world contains more and more events that I cannot identify fully and dogmatically with any norm or generalization."

Calibration is important when manufacturing or adjusting things to spec. Manufacturers that don't will surely exist.

Surely calibration is also important when collecting data in a scientific experiment.

What was dismissed ? Were they controversial 'papers' that have been debunked by others in the meantime ? People that write papers can also write nonsense and publish them.

The Papers were controversial only ever to the proponents of Audio ABX as a reliable method to establish the absence of audible differences.

Considering Audio ABX as a reliable method to establish the absence of audible differences in itself is to my consideration a rather exceptional and extraordinary claim that should be backed with extraordinary evidence to be accepted.

Thor

 

[Mulder]

I think that sums up a lot of this discussion.
Pretty much the same endless subject as the other thread.

Master Thread: Are measurements Everything or Nothing?

Seems like so many review threads get challenged with: 1. Measurements are not everything. 2. You all never listen. 3. I trust my ears, not graphs. 4. I don't listen to graphs. I listen to music. 5. You all must not listen to music at all. 6. Why don't you all buy the best SINAD gear? 7...

www.audiosciencereview.com

But you completely miss what science is about and what forms the basis of the disagreement in this thread. Science is about presenting statements about reality in such a way that it is possible to test them, i.e. they must on a principled level be possible to falsify. If falsifications fails, then the statement is regarded as true - until it is falsified. If ever. A statement about "good sound", for example, cannot be tested in itself. However, you can test what a statistical sample of people thinks about "good sound". The latter presupposes a test procedure, and that this can be assessed, repeated and possibly criticized. But a claim about "good sound" is itself just a perception. The objection to Thorsten Loesch's statements is that he does not show any data or anything else that makes it possible to test his "observations". The problem from a scientific point of view is that in the end it's all about Thorsten Loesch believing certain things. If this was just a proposal or hypotheisis it would not be very troublesome, but as I se it, Thorsten also make statements about reality. You can do that, but you cannot credibly reject scientific results based solely on your "opinion" one way or the other.

 

[solderdude]

Surely calibration is also important when collecting data in a scientific experiment.

Of course, one should use calibrated equipment and have it checked at the required intervals.

The Papers were controversial only ever to the proponents of Audio ABX as a reliable method to establish the absence of audible differences.

Considering Audio ABX as a reliable method to establish the absence of audible differences in itself is to my consideration a rather exceptional and extraordinary claim that should be backed with extraordinary evidence to be accepted.

Likewise for concluding that ABX is not a reliable method when it can be applied and is correctly applied.

Likewise is running a few 'preference' method results and not verifying why the results are as they were found totally not scientific. It just has the appearance of science because findings were logged.
What was important is why the science used (FR and distortion into a load) was not researched further when AB(X) testing did not reveal similar results.

That, in essence, is what most here object to. I understand you seeing it as an undeniable fact. 'We', however, have to take your word for it as the data is not all known.
In that case it is easy to dismiss it as evidence. Like you said... it was merely an observation. Yet you defend it as if it were a science fact and then put the burdon on others to disprove the claim.

At least that's what I make of it. Not dismissing your audio-fu.

 

[Reynaldo]

But you completely miss what science is about and what forms the basis of the disagreement in this thread. Science is about presenting statements about reality in such a way that it is possible to test them, i.e. they must on a principled level be possible to falsify. If falsifications fails, then the statement is regarded as true - until it is falsified. If ever. A statement about "good sound", for example, cannot be tested in itself. However, you can test what a statistical sample of people thinks about "good sound". The latter presupposes a test procedure, and that this can be assessed, repeated and possibly criticized. But a claim about "good sound" is itself just a perception. The objection to Thorsten Loesch's statements is that he does not show any data or anything else that makes it possible to test his "observations". The problem from a scientific point of view is that in the end it's all about Thorsten Loesch believing certain things. If this was just a proposal or hypotheisis it would not be very troublesome, but as I se it, Thorsten also make statements about reality. You can do that, but you cannot credibly reject scientific results based solely on your "opinion" one way or the other.

But this is the point, I don't want to scientifically prove anything.

I've owned several DACs, now I've bought an iFi and love the sound quality I'm hearing. I don't want to prove it scientifically because I liked it and many who bought it liked it.
Possibly there will be people who bought it and didn't like it, simple as that.
How many people buy DACs because they have a high SINAD and they don't like it?
This discussion is endless.
I've read here people talking about science and then went to change fuses to improve the sound.

The truth is that we are in a polarized world, for practically everything.

 

[SIY]

But this is the point, I don't want to scientifically prove anything.

I've owned several DACs, now I've bought an iFi and love the sound quality I'm hearing. I don't want to prove it scientifically because I liked it and many who bought it liked it.
Possibly there will be people who bought it and didn't like it, simple as that.
How many people buy DACs because they have a high SINAD and they don't like it?
This discussion is endless.
I've read here people talking about science and then went to change fuses to improve the sound.

The truth is that we are in a polarized world, for practically everything.

If you're not interested in evidence and getting to the reality of issues, why in the world would you participate in a science-based forum? There's lots of places on the internet where people enjoy swapping fairy tales about audio equipment. This just isn't one of them.

 

[Mulder]

But this is the point, I don't want to scientifically prove anything.

I've owned several DACs, now I've bought an iFi and love the sound quality I'm hearing. I don't want to prove it scientifically because I liked it and many who bought it liked it.
Possibly there will be people who bought it and didn't like it, simple as that.
How many people buy DACs because they have a high SINAD and they don't like it?
This discussion is endless.
I've read here people talking about science and then went to change fuses to improve the sound.

The truth is that we are in a polarized world, for practically everything.

This is a bit like complaining in a forum for football fans why nobody is discussing ice-hockey. Perhaps this forum is not for you then? There are plenty of forums where subjective audiophillia is discussed.

 

[Reynaldo]

If you're not interested in evidence and getting to the reality of issues, why in the world would you participate in a science-based forum? There's lots of places on the internet where people enjoy swapping fairy tales about audio equipment. This just isn't one of them.

Are you now the one who determines where I should participate or not?
The reasons I'm here are mine, I don't need to explain to anyone.

 

[Reynaldo]

This is a bit like complaining in a forum for football fans why nobody is discussing ice-hockey. Perhaps this forum is not for you then? There are plenty of forums where subjective audiophillia are discussed.

I'll write again, I respect amirm's work, it serves as a parameter for me.
Now I want to be open minded to other factors.

 

[Mulder]

Now I want to be open minded to other factors.

You have to realize this forum is not just for you. You have to accept the fact that this basically is not a forum for "other factors". You can be how open minded you like, but decency requires that you essentially respect the premises that prevail in the context you enter into.

 

[ahofer]

Now I want to be open minded to other factors.

My mind is open to other factors, and I think the same is true of many others at ASR. But if the assertion of those other factors isn't accompanied by some kind of reasonable evidence, we don't want to let our brains fall out speculating about Russell's Teapot.

Homeopathy neither makes scientific sense, nor has any solid science behind it. Yet many people swear by it. Claims about homeopathy are legion, but evidence is not. It is reasonable to assume these claims are more likely about placebo effects and other psychosomatic phenomena UNTIL someone shows an effect in a controlled experiment. When you consider that most of the time the claims are about differences in equipment, not humans, this becomes even more salient.

 

[lateralous]

As is what I did. I have the feeling that what is being objected to here is less that fact that I did what I did and got results I got, but the fact that my results fail to support prevalent orthodox beliefs.

No, what is objected:
a.) You did what you did and got the results you got - says you. It is nothing but a story, regardless of content, at present.
b.) Your results - what results? Again, we have nothing but a story.

 

[SIY]

Are you now the one who determines where I should participate or not?
The reasons I'm here are mine, I don't need to explain to anyone.

Friendly advice: if you want to tell fairy stories, your life here will be Hobbesian: nasty, brutish, and short. Fairies may fly, but fairy tales don't.

 

[Veri]

Friendly advice: if you want to tell fairy stories, your life here will be Hobbesian: nasty, brutish, and short. Fairies may fly, but fairy tales don't.

 

[Thorsten Loesch]

Of course, one should use calibrated equipment and have it checked at the required intervals.

As such, the ABX has generally a "human" as the detecting element. So bottom line, we need to calibrate our ABX test too.

Likewise for concluding that ABX is not a reliable method when it can be applied and is correctly applied.

I always use "Audio ABX" and mean that to read "Audio ABX test as originated and promoted by ABX Company of Troy Michigan", which is a bit of a mouth full.

I do not claim that the general ABX methodology is inherently flawed or problematic, only this specific subset, which is however what is normally meant in conversation here..

Likewise is running a few 'preference' method results and not verifying why the results are as they were found totally not scientific.

Did I claim I was being "scientific"? I used certain tools provided by science to provide a foundation for an engineering decision. The test was formulated hence to provide this kind of result. Controls were applied to make sure that the test results were reliable, or as Richard Feynman says, we do not fool ourselves, which is the easienst thing to do.

That, in essence, is what most here object to. I understand you seeing it as an undeniable fact. 'We', however, have to take your word for it as the data is not all known.
In that case it is easy to dismiss it as evidence. Like you said... it was merely an observation.

I defend my observation, the right to make my observation and to write: "I made this observation in such and such a manner and this what I observed."

Thor

 

[pma]

Now I want to be open minded to other factors

That’s fine. The other factors are in human’s brain, definitely there are no other factors in the electric signal.