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

[fpitas]

from my experience:

topping dx3 sounds too analytical.
topping dx1 with akm is very musical, maybe too much.
smsl c200 is a good middle ground between the two.

so not only different dacs have a sound signature, but the same dac with different tuning also sound different.

Uh huh

 

[HarmonicTHD]

from my experience:

topping dx3 sounds too analytical.
topping dx1 with akm is very musical, maybe too much.
smsl c200 is a good middle ground between the two.

so not only different dacs have a sound signature, but the same dac with different tuning also sound different

I am certain @Spkrdctr got his brand new BS meter broken again.

 

[Mart68]

Sorry dude, that one is not resolving enough

It is, it just needs 250 hours burn in. Then it will compare favourably to bullshit meters in the $500 to $1000 range.

 

[Blumlein 88]

It is, it just needs 250 hours burn in. Then it will compare favourably to bullshit meters in the $500 to $1000 range.

Might need an isolation device too.

 

[BDWoody]

topping dx1 with akm is very musical, maybe too much.

Wouldn't want it to be too musical after all.

 

[HarmonicTHD]

Might need an isolation device too.

Yep. To increase BSRR

 

[solderdude]

from my experience:

topping dx3 sounds too analytical.
topping dx1 with akm is very musical, maybe too much.
smsl c200 is a good middle ground between the two.

so not only different dacs have a sound signature, but the same dac with different tuning also sound different.

Strange....

from my inexperience

topping dx3 sounds warm and a bit dull
topping dx1 sounds analytical and cold
smsl c200 sounds harsh and boomy

so not only different dacs have a sound signature, but the same dac sounds different to someone else.

 

[ahofer]

from my experience:

topping dx3 sounds too analytical.
topping dx1 with akm is very musical, maybe too much.
smsl c200 is a good middle ground between the two.

so not only different dacs have a sound signature, but the same dac with different tuning also sound different.

Welcome to ASR! You've made an unsupported assertion or a scientifically implausible claim that will cause most people in this science-oriented forum to react with skepticism (or scepticism if they are in the U.K.). Please don't take the reactions as overtly hostile - most of us are just frustrated with the many newcomers who have clearly come here just to "troll". Please do engage with the membership to find an objective, controlled method to support or discard your hypothesis. Our membership includes recovering subjectivists, many engineers/scientists, and several famous figures in the world of audio engineering research. Generally, they can cite scientific, controlled research to support their views. Most believe in the fallibility of human sighted judgement, and think blind testing and measurements are critical ingredients for assessing equipment contributions to sound quality. We'd love to have you, but if all you want is a) to fight or b) to have others cheerlead for your subjective views or anecdotal evidence, I'd suggest you will be happier elsewhere.

 

[fpitas]

topping dx1 with akm is very musical, maybe too much.

Only the musical fruit can be too musical, in my experience.

 

[lateralous]

A serious question of sorts, what realistic criticisms are there against testing such as @pma excellently performed that show a direct comparison between the signal at the analogue output of both DACs? What could possibly be left to discover? Throw out the human element in ABX testing and the quagmire of spurious arguments opponents use, and I still can't get beyond this. If the literal signal coming out of two DACs differs, measurably, by levels that are order of magnitudes below our hearing threshold it simply makes no damn sense ones ears can hear a difference when those signals are listened to.

 

[fpitas]

A serious question of sorts, what realistic criticisms are there against testing such as @pma excellently performed that show a direct comparison between the signal at the analogue output of both DACs? What could possibly be left to discover? Throw out the human element in ABX testing and the quagmire of spurious arguments opponents use, and I still can't get beyond this. If the literal signal coming out of two DACs differs, measurably, by levels that are order of magnitudes below our hearing threshold it simply makes no damn sense ones ears can hear a difference when those signals are listened to.

That's true. Amir's FFT testing reveals the same thing, albeit in a more mathematical way.

This kind of testing has been settled science for quite a long time. Only the ignorami of the internet could turn it into ridiculous mockery.

 

[dkinric]

Welcome to ASR! You've made an unsupported assertion or a scientifically implausible claim that will cause most people in this science-oriented forum to react with skepticism (or scepticism if they are in the U.K.). Please don't take the reactions as overtly hostile - most of us are just frustrated with the many newcomers who have clearly come here just to "troll". Please do engage with the membership to find an objective, controlled method to support or discard your hypothesis. Our membership includes recovering subjectivists, many engineers/scientists, and several famous figures in the world of audio engineering research. Generally, they can cite scientific, controlled research to support their views. Most believe in the fallibility of human sighted judgement, and think blind testing and measurements are critical ingredients for assessing equipment contributions to sound quality. We'd love to have you, but if all you want is a) to fight or b) to have others cheerlead for your subjective views or anecdotal evidence, I'd suggest you will be happier elsewhere.

Somebody copy this down

 

[Mnyb]

Are these trolls cooperating on some other forums and take turns to spam us with their nonsense in some kind of relay to wear out all sane responders ? It continues to increase in level. I fear that many actual audio professionals that are here would soon find better things to do elsewhere if the forum noise level continues to increase ?

 

[fpitas]

Are these trolls cooperating on some other forums and take turns to spam us with their nonsense in some kind of relay to wear out all sane responders ? It continues to increase in level. I fear that many actual audio professionals that are here would soon find better things to do elsewhere if the forum noise level continues to increase ?

Heck, it could be the same guy, or just a few. Nothing stopping them from making multiple accounts.

 

[HarmonicTHD]

Are these trolls cooperating on some other forums and take turns to spam us with their nonsense in some kind of relay to wear out all sane responders ? It continues to increase in level. I fear that many actual audio professionals that are here would soon find better things to do elsewhere if the forum noise level continues to increase ?

Yes also my impression and it is not contained to this loony bin thread only unfortunately. So it is hard by now not to come across it in every other thread and short of taking a break for oneself hard to avoid.

 

[antcollinet]

...

As for sound, sound is NOT vibrations in the air.
....

Thor

Well that is a point of view. But even if we accept that at face value, the sound is carried from the source to your brain by vibrations - first electrical in electronics, then as they are converted by transducers: pressure vibrations in the air. That is all - a simple 2 dimensional electrical - or pressure - variation with time.

If you listen to sound (your definition) that comes from two devices that deliver effectively identical vibrations to your ears, and yet percieve two different sounds - it must be a given that the difference you hear is not caused by difference in performance of the devices, but by mechanisms in your brain.

 

[oleg87]

A serious question of sorts, what realistic criticisms are there against testing such as @pma excellently performed that show a direct comparison between the signal at the analogue output of both DACs? What could possibly be left to discover? Throw out the human element in ABX testing and the quagmire of spurious arguments opponents use, and I still can't get beyond this. If the literal signal coming out of two DACs differs, measurably, by levels that are order of magnitudes below our hearing threshold it simply makes no damn sense ones ears can hear a difference when those signals are listened to.

Well, if there is some sound quality X factor(s) that presumably has to do with finer points of a signal's time-domain behavior that eludes the standard audio measurement suite, presumably the objection would be that feeding it through some ADC may perturb it out of existence.

 

[fpitas]

Well, if there is some sound quality X factor(s) that presumably has to do with finer points of a signal's time-domain behavior that eludes the standard audio measurement suite, presumably the objection would be that feeding it through some ADC may perturb it out of existence.

Uh huh

 

[NiagaraPete]

Could a moderator please close this thread. It’s getting painful.

 

[fpitas]

Could a moderator please close this thread. It’s getting painful.

But we were just finding out about the X factor!