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

[Thorsten Loesch]

Interesting. What do you attribute this consistently perceived and described sound signature differences among devices sufficiently free from audible distortion and noise?

Factors outside the purview of the specific objective tests used.

BTW, natural numbers is a large set, so I am not sure what >10 is but I am assuming it is not >20 otherwise you'd have mentioned it,

Numbers in different tests vary. Non I remember under the DAC heading had less than 10 participants.

Next to many Audio ABX tests this is a large number of subjects.

might be good enough for commercial purposes

It is.

But hope we will not call this a proof?

It is sufficient proof for me personally, to base engineering decisions on the test results.

My tests were never intended to prove anything in this stupid idiocy ongoing objectivist vs subjectivists debate.

And even if I had put in the extra work to produce something for publication, it would only have:

1) Given away information that provides a competitive advantage for free to competitors (I would call that really, really stupid) without any return whatsoever.

2) Being told by the people I try to convince of my results (e.g. Audio Objectivists, Audio ABX Mafia, the Cargo Cult of SINAD and miscellaneous related pseudoscience groups in Audio with similar and overlapping positions) that because my test methodology is not Audio AXB it cannot be valid.

3) Risking to confuse and alienate ordinary customers with a the controversy. As they say, if you go wrestling a pig in the mud, not only will you get dirty, but the pig will beat you with it's experience and enjoy the whole thing.

Thor

 

[HarmonicTHD]

Factors outside the purview of the specific objective tests used.



Numbers in different tests vary. Non I remember under the DAC heading had less than 10 participants.

Next to many Audio ABX tests this is a large number of subjects.



It is.



It is sufficient proof for me personally, to base engineering decisions on the test results.

My tests were never intended to prove anything in this stupid idiocy ongoing objectivist vs subjectivists debate.

And even if I had put in the extra work to produce something for publication, it would only have:

1) Given away information that provides a competitive advantage for free to competitors (I would call that really, really stupid) without any return whatsoever.

2) Being told by the people I try to convince of my results (e.g. Audio Objectivists, Audio ABX Mafia, the Cargo Cult of SINAD and miscellaneous related pseudoscience groups in Audio with similar and overlapping positions) that because my test methodology is not Audio AXB it cannot be valid.

3) Risking to confuse and alienate ordinary customers with a the controversy. As they say, if you go wrestling a pig in the mud, not only will you get dirty, but the pig will beat you with it's experience and enjoy the whole thing.

Thor

Isn’t that convenient. Why do you even mention these alleged tests in the first place?

Personally, if I have observations which I can’t prove, I simply stay quiet. That goes for my professional and my private life.

 

[IAtaman]

Factors outside the purview of the specific objective tests used.



Numbers in different tests vary. Non I remember under the DAC heading had less than 10 participants.

Next to many Audio ABX tests this is a large number of subjects.



It is.



It is sufficient proof for me personally, to base engineering decisions on the test results.

My tests were never intended to prove anything in this stupid idiocy ongoing objectivist vs subjectivists debate.

And even if I had put in the extra work to produce something for publication, it would only have:

1) Given away information that provides a competitive advantage for free to competitors (I would call that really, really stupid) without any return whatsoever.

2) Being told by the people I try to convince of my results (e.g. Audio Objectivists, Audio ABX Mafia, the Cargo Cult of SINAD and miscellaneous related pseudoscience groups in Audio with similar and overlapping positions) that because my test methodology is not Audio AXB it cannot be valid.

3) Risking to confuse and alienate ordinary customers with a the controversy. As they say, if you go wrestling a pig in the mud, not only will you get dirty, but the pig will beat you with it's experience and enjoy the whole thing.

Thor

Yes sure, I don't see a lot of good reason for you to publish your results either if you are not interested in that kind of thing.

I don't think internet forums are where things get proven/ disproven so I am not interested in your methodology, I am more curious about your view on why, what might be those factors? I am sure you thought about it, otherwise you would not be convinced. Do you want to share it, that I don't know and of course respect if you chose not to.

 

[pkane]

2) Being told by the people I try to convince of my results (e.g. Audio Objectivists, Audio ABX Mafia, the Cargo Cult of SINAD and miscellaneous related pseudoscience groups in Audio with similar and overlapping positions) that because my test methodology is not Audio AXB it cannot be valid.

If you really want to convince, then please provide more than just anecdotes and put-downs.

 

[HarmonicTHD]

If you really want to convince, then please provide more than just anecdotes and put-downs.

I came to the conclusion he doesn’t as this is about the fourth or fifth round putting out the claims and getting called out for it.

Getting attention seems to be more important. I am out and TL on ignore.

Edit. Typo.

 

[BDWoody]

2) Being told by the people I try to convince of my results (e.g. Audio Objectivists, Audio ABX Mafia, the Cargo Cult of SINAD and miscellaneous related pseudoscience groups in Audio with similar and overlapping positions) that because my test methodology is not Audio AXB it cannot be valid.

No one has said that's the only acceptable form of valid testing, yet you continue to trot out this kind of strawman nonsense as if you can't help yourself.

This thread is now closed to you.

If you can't engage in good faith, without the endless insults and condescension you may be better off trying to hold court where your song and dance routine will be appropriately appreciated.

 

[antcollinet]

Ahhm, how was SeeDee marketed again, let me think? Was it "good enough sound, next to your noisy LP's and K7 tapes!"?

Or was it:

Philips Compact Disc
Pure, Perfect Sound Forever

Answers on a postcard.

Thor

We weren't talking about how they were marketed - we were discussing your words "good enough"

 

[antcollinet]

Would you kindly explain why you think an inconvenient truth that others misrepresent as supposed "mis-information" is an oxymoron?

Thor

My statement was you can't be bigotted against misinformation. You said you can if it is an inconvenient truth.

The oxymoron is that it can't be misinformation AND an inconvenient truth. If it is an inconvenient truth then it is not misinformation.

 

[nugget]

While we're in a lull and also discussing misinformation, Bill Gates never said the oft-repeated quote about 640K:

"I've said some stupid things and some wrong things, but not that. No one involved in computers would ever say that a certain amount of memory is enough for all time. Meanwhile, I keep bumping into that silly quotation attributed to me that says 640K of memory is enough. There's never a citation; the quotation just floats like a rumor, repeated again and again."

--Bill Gates, Wired Magazine Interview, 16-Jan-1997

 

[fpitas]

While we're in a lull and also discussing misinformation, Bill Gates never said the oft-repeated quote about 640K:

"I've said some stupid things and some wrong things, but not that. No one involved in computers would ever say that a certain amount of memory is enough for all time. Meanwhile, I keep bumping into that silly quotation attributed to me that says 640K of memory is enough. There's never a citation; the quotation just floats like a rumor, repeated again and again."

--Bill Gates, Wired Magazine Interview, 16-Jan-1997

For some bizarre reason people attribute all sorts of bizarre things to Bill Gates. He features in any number of conspiracy theories that just leave me confused.

But I bet he's the real reason DACs have sound signatures.

 

[Spkrdctr]

But I bet he's the real reason DACs have sound signatures.

I knew Bill Gates was the culprit! I finally have it confirmed. Thanks.

 

[Killingbeans]

Yes, if the so-called "misinformation" are actually inconvenient truth.

You keep bringing that up, and I don't think anybody in here disagrees.

The problem is that your inconvenient truth looks unmistakingly like a reassuring lie to those who examine it in the light of the data we already have.

I carried out fairly large scale (> 10 listeners) on multiple occasions during product design, to for example identify candidate DAC chips for use.

From my experience, different DAC's that all measure sufficiently well to be free from audible noise, audible harmonic distortion, audible levels of jitter etc. have different degrees of preference under blind conditions with consistent descriptions of perceived "sound signature" for specific DAC Chip architectures and/or Brands but also between individual offerings of the same brand.

Note, my tests are never Audio ABX, but blind preference tests, operating on the basic premise that DAC's are permitted to sound different, by the relevant laws of physics, physioacoustics and psychoacoustics.

They do not seek to establish if there is a difference (that would be useless to my purpose), but they seem to evaluate if there is a reliable preference for the sound of one/some items over others.

Thor

Blind as in: None of the test subjects had any idea of what they were listening to, and they weren't coaxed into focusing on specific aspects?

 

[pma]

You keep bringing that up, and I don't think anybody in here disagrees.

He is banned from this thread - see previous page.

 

[IAtaman]

He is banned from this thread - see previous page.

Where do you stand on this DACs that measure sufficiently well might still have different sound signatures argument PMA if you don't mind me asking.

 

[Killingbeans]

He is banned from this thread - see previous page.

Ahh, I missed that post.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Factors outside the purview of the specific objective tests used.



Numbers in different tests vary. Non I remember under the DAC heading had less than 10 participants.

Next to many Audio ABX tests this is a large number of subjects.



It is.



It is sufficient proof for me personally, to base engineering decisions on the test results.

My tests were never intended to prove anything in this stupid idiocy ongoing objectivist vs subjectivists debate.

And even if I had put in the extra work to produce something for publication, it would only have:

1) Given away information that provides a competitive advantage for free to competitors (I would call that really, really stupid) without any return whatsoever.

2) Being told by the people I try to convince of my results (e.g. Audio Objectivists, Audio ABX Mafia, the Cargo Cult of SINAD and miscellaneous related pseudoscience groups in Audio with similar and overlapping positions) that because my test methodology is not Audio AXB it cannot be valid.

3) Risking to confuse and alienate ordinary customers with a the controversy. As they say, if you go wrestling a pig in the mud, not only will you get dirty, but the pig will beat you with it's experience and enjoy the whole thing.

Thor

Clearly info can be a competitive advantage. Also this creates an obvious conflict of interest. "You can trust me. I wouldn't steer you wrong. But for proprietary reasons I can really tell you nothing except info that doesn't inform. "
Even if this were true, debate on a public forum is not in good faith in these circumstances.

And now I see there is a thread ban. Quite appropriate.

 

[pma]

Where do you stand on this DACs that measure sufficiently well might still have different sound signatures argument PMA if you don't mind me asking.

”measure sufficiently well” may have a bit different meaning to me than it is commonly understood here. I look at not only audio band parameters, but also at HF mess at the DAC output, as it may have influence on amplifier behind the DAC. If the DAC output is “clean” in MHz range, then I agree that “measure sufficiently well” is enough to have no additional signature. Still, the set of measurements to be wide enough, wider than used here in ASR reviews.

 

[IAtaman]

”measure sufficiently well” may have a bit different meaning to me than it is commonly understood here. I look at not only audio band parameters, but also at HF mess at the DAC output, as it may have influence on amplifier behind the DAC. If the DAC output is “clean” in MHz range, then I agree that “measure sufficiently well” is enough to have no additional signature. Still, the set of measurements to be wide enough, wider than used here in ASR reviews.

How would the MHz range be relevant to sound signature? I hope you are not going to say alpha brain waves

 

[SIY]

How would the MHz range be relevant to sound signature? I hope you are not going to say alpha brain waves

His worry is that it will cause issues with downstream components. I think that's unlikely, but some data and actual examples could be more persuasive.

 

[pma]

How would the MHz range be relevant to sound signature? I hope you are not going to say alpha brain waves

Yes, high dV/dt of “needle like” impulses, the residuals of digital circuits operation, clock etc. may result in intermodulation or slew induced distortion in mediocre analog circuits. It was rather an issue decades ago than now. Still, not completely excluded. On the other hand, newer DACs, and I can speak about Topping D10s from my direct experience, may have very very clean output in ultrasound and HF area. An example of poor behaviour was, for example, Technics SL-PG100. Not very good in this regard is also DacMagicPlus.