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

[Thorsten Loesch]

What are "better materials" ?

Solid Gold.

 

[Talisman]

I shared my experiences. It is up to you to consider them critically and draw your own conclusions.

That's what I did

It is obviously that you are heavily invested into the "everything sounds the same" viewpoint and you would reject anything I might present.

I have a different background.
I didn't come to this site convinced everything sounded different and was indoctrinated. I have always found nothing of the differences that seemed obvious to many. So much so that I had convinced myself that I had very poor ears. This site just made me think that perhaps I'm simply less sensitive to self-induced suggestion than many (and maybe I also have poor ears).
I'm not interested in defending one thesis or the other, I'm only interested in knowing what I can really hear and what not. There is no truth that makes me more comfortable than the other, I don't sell audio products.

And here I come to your final point.
just hearing a difference with my own ears can change my mind. There were tons of tests on this site that I could run (not just ABX which you hate) that let me find out what I can and can't hear. For me it was rehearsal, without much narrative behind it. Trivial tests to perform. Do you have a serious test to propose to me to make me hear that there are actually differences that I can hear between two medium-level DACs? all my tests carried out told me the opposite.

 

[voodooless]

I CAN absolutely do that. As long as I state this in any publication etc..

You can if the research question justifies doing it. You haven't stated any research questions, so I cannot judge what can or cannot be done...

But I did not suggest that I would cherry pick 10 individuals from a large number of tests (say 100 tests), but that the specific test was taken by 10 individuals, all of which failed to pass the 9/10 statistical threshold but all of which passed the 7/10 threshold.

Again, it all depends on what questions you seek answers for...

 

[pma]

I started reading your posts with skepticism, then slowly with interest, then with doubt, again with interest..... and then slowly again with doubt, and finally again with skepticism.

You talk a lot but it seems you never get to a point, you keep telling anecdotes, well detailed, well told, sensible, connected to each other. Yet not real proof, never really verifiable important fact.
Now all I see is blah blah blah....

In Italy we call such long and articulated discussions that they do not make any sense "supercazzole"

I think it is said intentionally. Say something that makes somewhat sense but then keep it in a mystery. It keeps attention.

 

[fpitas]

My answer to this thread's totally serious question: science has yet to consider the unicorn and rainbow element.

 

[Benedium]

Just buy cheap stuff and u will be a winner. Everything else is imaginary.

 

[ahofer]

I had one question : why is everyone so ardent about level matching ??

See the quote from Alan Shaw in my signature.

These numbers are just meant to show that the cost of high end gear is found in other things than the signal path.

Agree. Discussed at length here:

How can bogus claims and inferior audio thrive in a competitive market?

I keep running into the same addlepated thought, here and in other forums. It goes something like this: Market success is the clearest indication of value. Expensive cables must sound better, or people wouldn't pay for them; exotic amplifiers must be better or they wouldn't survive. Even...

audiosciencereview.com

Your amplifier comment is a bit of a strawman. But amplifiers that measure similarly, with distortion and linearity tamed below audible thresholds, operating within their power specifications, will indeed sound the same. There are lots of controlled tests (of various quality) that support this view, and if you’ve got one that doesn’t, it would be a first. I’d suggest you start with the 1987 Stereo Review test, since it tested such wildly different designs. Link in the post below:

Master Thread: Are measurements Everything or Nothing?

I honestly don't think there are many musicians on this site. I say this because a lot of musicians like things that color the sound. Like there are a ton of plugins and hardware that is made just for this very reason. Like you would run a clean signal through it to color the sound. A lot of...

audiosciencereview.com

 

[Sokel]

Funny thing about this threads is they are keeping everyones attention cause is the easy way to destruct them from the elephant in the room (speakers and room itself).
It's like people HOPING to find definitive answers (excluding everything else who sadly exist if not taken cared off) as it would be a CHEAP and easy way to deal with the disatisfaction that's probably there.
What about leaving them be until all else are fixed?I mean it's obvious someone will have to deal with a big fire in it's house before cleaning the dishes.

 

[fpitas]

Just buy cheap stuff and u will be a winner. Everything else is imaginary.

Say, buy the cheapest stuff that actually works well, and I'll agree!

 

[ahofer]

just don't understand how an educated person can say that no one can hear the difference between individual devices,

Misspeak? I don’t understand how educated people can turn their back on a mountain of research and tests, and keep insisting they can hear things that have been shown, again and again, to be inaudible.

 

[fpitas]

Not sure why this silly thread hasn't been merged into the "Do measurements suck, or are they just useless?" thread.

 

[lateralous]

I think it is said intentionally. Say something that makes somewhat sense but then keep it in a mystery. It keeps attention.

I think this is much more insidious than the standard "golden ear" who lashes with the same tired tropes. Especially now that the same obfuscation is leaking from iFi product threads.

 

[fpitas]

I think this is much more insidious than the standard "golden ear" who lashes with the same tired tropes. Especially now that the same obfuscation is leaking from iFi product threads.

Trolls? On my ASR?

 

[Mnyb]

Not sure why this silly thread hasn't been merged into the "Do measurements suck, or are they just useless?" thread.

I think it's a watershed . a litmus test if you get it or not

Iteration I think:

0. Join ASR.
1. Post silly old audiophile trope with planktons and microdetails in this tread.
2. Get bashed on head for being silly.
3. Do some homework and reading.
4a. Got it , move on with life post something else. (* end *)
4b. still don't get it goto 1 (* rinse repeat *).

DAC is a very good candidate for this kind of test . It's literally does one job and it's usually very perfectly executed .
Other electronic components have their idiosyncrasies and if and but's and exceptions and nigling issues . Not most DAC's, give it full scale value at some sample rate you get 2volt out what could be simpler .
If you still try to fit the unicorn somewhere , you got some thinking to do .

The measurement tread , there are real issues with for example speaker measurement's and what to say about them for example. that question actually have nuances about interpretation .
This one don't

 

[fpitas]

I think it's a watershed . a litmus test if you get it or not

Iteration I think:

0. Join ASR.
1. Post silly old audiophile trope with planktons and microdetails in this tread.
2. Get bashed on head for being silly.
3. Do some homework and reading.
4a. Got it , move on with life post something else. (* end *)
4b. still don't get it goto 1 (* rinse repeat *).

DAC is a very good candidate for this kind of test . It's literally does one job and it's usually very perfectly executed .
Other electronic components have their idiosyncrasies and if and but's and exceptions and nigling issues . Not most DAC's, give it full scale value at some sample rate you get 2volt out what could be simpler .
If you still try to fit the unicorn somewhere , you got some thinking to do .

The measurement tread , there are real issues with for example speaker measurement's and what to say about them for example. that question actually have nuances about interpretation .
This one don't

Yes, everything you said. But being a harsh and cynical man, I suspect some posters are disingenuous about their "beliefs"

 

[NTK]

No, it does NOT do that. It tells you that person failed the test.
...

You are clearly misrepresenting the statistical interpretations. What the results says is it fell short of the typical standard to justify a claim that there are "night and day" or "obvious" or "clear" differences.

The results are the results. 9 positives out of 10 means roughly speaking (roughly because 10 tests are insufficient for the central limit theorem to apply, therefore a more conservative estimate of the confidence interval should be even wider), we have 95% confidence that the true probability of detecting a difference is over 0.7.

How to get these numbers? 9 out of 10 gives a mean of 0.9, and a standard deviation of 0.316. Plug it into this calculator, and you get a 95% confidence interval of 0.9 ± 0.2, and 0.7 is the lower bound of the confidence interval.

Is it good enough? That depends. If I am spending an extra XYZ amount on something for a certain purported benefit, should I be satisfied by the knowledge that I can be 95% confident that I will be able to actually tell a difference more than 70% of the time?

Or, for the case of 7 out of 10 in ABX tests, should I be ecstatic that I'm 81% confident that my chance of being able to tell a difference is better than a random coin flip.

But of course, when the improvements are night and day, 10 out of 10 would be a piece of cake, wouldn't it?

 

[fpitas]

But of course, when the improvements are night and day, 10 out of 10 would be a piece of cake, wouldn't it?

If, and only if, your wife hears it from the kitchen.

 

[ahofer]

We need an ABXY test, where we introduce an option that is distorted roughly at the audibility threshold to keep the tester honest. Maybe that would quell these (largely inconsequential, I think) objections.

PS- I do think the objection that some listeners are biased towards no difference is true. HOWEVER, consider the hilarious statistical discussion about Stereophile's amplifier test, strongly suggesting the audience was biased TOWARDS hearing a difference. The whole interpretation in that article is such a transparent attempt at rationalization you have to laugh.

 

[BDWoody]

Maybe that would quell these (largely inconsequential, I think) objections.

Wishful thinking...

If the results don't support the story, it will always be a problem with the test.

 

[fpitas]

Right? I mean these sorts of people can hear the effects of cable lifters. Easily. My ears just can't compete.