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

[Holmz]

…
I used a concept that kinda "lit up" in my mind while reading about a new version of electronics for Rafale & Eurofighter Typhoon that use active cancellation of radar (as opposed to the passive stealth employed by US and other "Stealth fighters".
…

Thor

I didn’t see that one coming.

 

[IAtaman]

It is absolutely baking hot here, I need to jump into my pool at least twice and run the AC on "Are you insane" in my office, but other than that, all is peachy.

That sounds like Vietnam, Thailand kind of heat at the current season. It shall cool down with summer rains I suppose but get more humid. I abhor high humidity and heat. Good luck to you.

No, the NOMA argument - that is "Non-overlapping magisteria".

On one side we have a purely subjective measure, in itself an "artform" as in "artificer", so to speak an "Illusion Engine" designed by a skilled Artificer.

On the other side we have purely objective measures, which by an large lack proven and reliable correlation with "good sound" or indeed providing a "credible illusion".

The advantage of NOMA as argument is that we all can go our separate ways and do whatever we do and be friends.

Another way of looking at it is philosophically, where Hegels Demon Thesis meets the Angel Antithesis in eternal struggle. Then Synthesis may be possible, or mutual annihilation.

Noma also happens to be a great restaurant in Copenhagen. Not sure if it is still open but you should check it out if your end ou in the vicinity. You will need a reservation in advance though if you are interested.

Back to the topic on hand, it would be a matter of facts vs values if the arguement was that there is no difference between 120db and 140db for matters of perception, yet I prefer one over the other. I thought your claim was that there is a perceivable difference between devices that measure 120db and 140db, and that differences in measurements and in preference were driven by the same phenomena, we just dont know what it is yet, hence the hidden variables.

Which is a reliable indicator of #different conclusion for a DBT.

The question there was not preference, or not (I usually ask these questions), but is there a reliable difference.

Sorry old man, you re on the hook for that one, proven difference.

No, it is not a reliable indicator of difference, even the researchers themselves admit to that in the conclusion. But I know you better by now not to pursue this line of discussion any further.

Thanks for the response. If you come by any other research that you deem relevant to general discussion, would appreciate if you could share please.

 

[Thorsten Loesch]

I didn’t see that one coming.

I have wide ranging interests. As a former Eastern European, defense against RuSSian aggression is fairly high up the list.

Thor

Let's go to the beach.
The bomb exploded.
The radiation toasts,
and blends nicely with the blue.

Let's go to the beach.
Everybody with a hat.
The radioactive wind
burns off the hair.

Let's go to the beach.
Finally the water is clean.
No more stinking fish,
but fluorescent water.

 

[Thorsten Loesch]

That sounds like Vietnam, Thailand kind of heat at the current season. It shall cool down with summer rains I suppose but get more humid. I abhor high humidity and heat. Good luck to you.

Yeah, Rain's are coming. Once it starts raining it's not so bad. And Songkran is comming.

Noma also happens to be a great restaurant in Copenhagen. Not sure if it is still open but you should check it out if your end ou in the vicinity. You will need a reservation in advance though if you are interested.

Never been to Copenhagen yet, not very high on the bucket list either.

Baan Kuhn Por in Prachuap Khiri Khan is a great place for live music, all sorts of kinds of food and beer. First shout is mine if you ever want escape grey Denmark.

Back to the topic on hand, it would be a matter of facts vs values if the arguement was that there is no difference between 120db and 140db for matters of perception, yet I prefer one over the other.

So you believe in numerology, that one number is better than another? Sounds like witchcraft and astrology to me. If it works for you, more power to you.

I thought your claim was

Nothing. I made no claim. I made comment with an observation I made previously.

there is a perceivable difference between devices that measure 120db and 140db,

HD.

And yes, I found that such a difference existed and that other standard AP2 tests showed no other difference that was material and beyond experimental error.

and that differences in measurements and in preference were driven by the same phenomena

I simply observed that after I removed some circuit optimisation that was used to achieve extra low (T)HD, which incidentally raised (T)HD by around 20dB at a specific frequency and output level, the device with these performance tweaks removed and the resultant higher (T)HD was reliably preferred in a blind preference test.

The root cause of the perceived difference and preference was a circuit modification, as was the difference in HD.

we just dont know what it is yet, hence the hidden variables.

I did not find out what the variable was, specifically because I was not looking for variables but for a manufacturable product that was perceived by the target audience as producing "good sound".

A tenured professor at a University would have had if necessary years to find this X-Factor, I lack such luxuries.

No, it is not a reliable indicator of difference, even the researchers themselves admit to that in the conclusion.

If the change in brainwave pattern is reliable, then it is clear that even if there was no difference in conscious perception, there was a difference that was caused by the presence or absence of ultrasonic that are "nominally inaudible", but must have a mechanism that involved acoustic transmission through air that changes the brainwave pattern.

If we have a Dimmer Switch (or Gas Cock) and operate it and observe that there is change in light, we established empirically a causal relationship, that, if the experiment is repeatable (it is and was multiple times in our case) is reliable.

For this we do not need to know if the lighting system uses gas, electricity, incandescent lamps or LED's or if it based on a mechanical iris and natural sunlight.

Finding out what is the hidden ? factor that allows the light to vary if I turn a dial is a whole other kettle of fish. But without the first experiment and observation it would not be possible...

Thanks for the response. If you come by any other research that you deem relevant to general discussion, would appreciate if you could share please.

I will, even though I am certain it will be treated according to Jeremiah 5:21.

Thor

 

[Holmz]

I have wide ranging interests. As a former Eastern European, defense against RuSSian aggression is fairly high up the list.

Thor
…

I think you missed the humour.

 

[Thorsten Loesch]

I think you missed the humour.

I'm German, we have the sense of humor surgically removed shortly after birth, kinda like the German version of brit milah.

Thor

 

[Holmz]

I'm German, we have the sense of humor surgically removed shortly after birth, kinda like the German version of brit milah.

Thor

We used to work with a fellow and we swore that he used a neck tie to hold the skin down, so as not come up around his ears.

In any case… you were talking about aircraft and active versus passive…
Hence the statement, “I didn’t see that coming”.

 

[Thorsten Loesch]

We used to work with a fellow and we swore that he used a neck tie to hold the skin down, so as not come up around his ears.

In any case… you were talking about aircraft and active versus passive…
Hence the statement, “I didn’t see that coming”.

Versuchst Du zu sagen das ich es faustdick hinter den ohren habe?

Thor

 

[Reggiejackson]

I'm not 100% sure what you guys mean by DAC. Would that be the same as an Audio interface minus the preamps and the headphone amp, or in the case of these two I list below just the headphone amp?

HDSPe AIO Pro - RME Audio Interfaces | Format Converters | Preamps | Network Audio & MADI Solutions

RME Audio Professional Live, Studio, Recording and Broadcast Solutions. Unrivalled Quality, Performance & Stability MADI Interfaces, Converters & Preamps.

www.rme-audio.de

E22 - Products - Lynx Studio Technology, Inc.

We engineer the finest tools to help audio professionals create even better sound.

www.lynxstudio.com

^^ Are these two audio interfaces going to sound exactly the same going to active studio monitors.. Or if it's just the Digital audio conversion and not the analog output as well?


does that mean that massive specifications like on this https://www.marian.de/products-archive/clara-b/?lang=en

Analog Outputs​

• 2 Channels via XLR D-Sub Adapter Cable
• Max. Level: +15 dBu / +24 dBu Configurable ex Factory
• Impedance: 75 Ohm
• SNR: 128 dB(A)*as per data sheet. measurement following

are meaningless?


I've tried numerous audio interfaces, and they all sounded drastically different, mind you that also involved the headphone amp in the unit.

I was thinking of buying either the RME or the LYNX and could save fair bit of time trying to research the products and some money by buying the lynx if they both sound the same.

 

[SIY]

I'm not 100% sure what you guys mean by DAC. Would that be the same as an Audio interface minus the preamps and the headphone amp, or in the case of these two I list below just the headphone amp?

HDSPe AIO Pro - RME Audio Interfaces | Format Converters | Preamps | Network Audio & MADI Solutions

RME Audio Professional Live, Studio, Recording and Broadcast Solutions. Unrivalled Quality, Performance & Stability MADI Interfaces, Converters & Preamps.

www.rme-audio.de

E22 - Products - Lynx Studio Technology, Inc.

We engineer the finest tools to help audio professionals create even better sound.

www.lynxstudio.com

^^ Are these two audio interfaces going to sound exactly the same going to active studio monitors.. Or if it's just the Digital audio conversion and not the analog output as well?


does that mean that massive specifications like on this https://www.marian.de/products-archive/clara-b/?lang=en


are meaningless?


I've tried numerous audio interfaces, and they all sounded drastically different, mind you that also involved the headphone amp in the unit.

I was thinking of buying either the RME or the LYNX and could save fair bit of time trying to research the products and some money by buying the lynx if they both sound the same.

The sound will be the same, the features will be different. Buy for the features you want and need.

 

[Reggiejackson]

^ Thanks. After sound the next most important thing for me is Latency performance and they are both great in that aspect. So I guess it comes down to price

 

[antcollinet]

^ Thanks. After sound the next most important thing for me is Latency performance and they are both great in that aspect. So I guess it comes down to price

Don't forget the "if they measure as transparent" part. It is quite possible to design a (bad) DAC that sounds different.

 

[Keith_W]

I'm not 100% sure what you guys mean by DAC. Would that be the same as an Audio interface minus the preamps and the headphone amp, or in the case of these two I list below just the headphone amp?

HDSPe AIO Pro - RME Audio Interfaces | Format Converters | Preamps | Network Audio & MADI Solutions

RME Audio Professional Live, Studio, Recording and Broadcast Solutions. Unrivalled Quality, Performance & Stability MADI Interfaces, Converters & Preamps.

www.rme-audio.de

If you want an RME HDSPE AIO, I have one boxed and unused. PM me if you want it.

 

[Reggiejackson]

I want the new version the "AIO PRO" but I think I will go with Lynx as it's fair bit cheaper as has everything I need on it.

 

[Wanman]

Right - but this whole thread - including the topic title, is about devices that measure as transparent. IE the differences are NOT audible. Differences are below the level of audibility for everyone.

Sorry, I'm new here. Not clear how a dac can measure as 'transparent' exactly. Obviously they can measure very well according to standard metrics, but what metric value equals transparent?

Also, not sure what a level of audibility is, same thing as threshold of audibility?

 

[BDWoody]

Sorry, I'm new here. Not clear how a dac can measure as 'transparent' exactly. Obviously they can measure very well according to standard metrics, but what metric value equals transparent?

Also, not sure what a level of audibility is, same thing as threshold of audibility?

Welcome!

Reading through the thread might be a way to get up to speed on the overall debate.

Here is a thread discussing audibility thresholds.

Audibility thresholds of amp and DAC measurements

Introduction A recurring theme on ASR is whether or not the various measured qualities of the devices are audible. In this post, I'll present some clear and visual thresholds for when those imperfections can be considered a potentially audible concern. I will not explain the basics of amp/DAC...

www.audiosciencereview.com

And here is another thread that catches a lot of this discussion.

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

 

[DSJR]

Looking back currently, I remember getting fatigue from the early Philips based '14 bit' machines* (recording a disc to a top line properly set up Nakamichi cassette deck with type IV tape removed the fatigue...). The Sony 101 never gave issue to me, but it didn't seem to resolve 'reverb tails' as well as a more modern player does on the same discs (an old comparison now and of course subjective). Of the early players, the first ones I enjoyed trying at home were the B&O CDX, Mission DAD 7000 (posh Philips 104) and my very first player, a Meridian MCD-Pro (boy, did I max out on my credit card buying discs to feed it!).

I'm getting round to the idea (helped objectively here) that the designed-in sonic differences in dacs and remaining CD players kind-of evened themselves out ten to fifteen years ago (I still feel I can 'hear' a difference between the four Rega CD players, but I bet a pound to a penny this is measurable - look up the Stereophile measurements on the Rega dac for example, as I now believe these were 'tuned' to appeal more to a vinyl loving person). These days and following comments by Ken Rockwell some years back on a Denon unit he either owned or measured, I'm finding the non-audiophool' digital sources do 'sound' the same as near as makes no difference and although I welcome the continuing tests done here, I think attention should perhaps turn as much if not more to facilities, build and feel (subjective I know), price asked for the facilities on offer and so on, bearing in mind the basic technical competence, as 'good enough' for ten years ago isn't good at all these days when a $150 (£200) dac can do so very well.


*This feeling of fatigue was repeatable for me, but no idea if it was the ultrasonic much such players seemed to spray out reactinge with the simple RC hf filters that many popular UK made amps had back then - no idea at all. UK reviewer Paul Millar used to do extensive ehf testing and rf testing on audio cables and tried hard (I think with some success?) to tally rf performance with perceived sound quality of audio cables (just means a well shielded cheap 'satellite grade' 75 ohm coax cable is fine for audio ).

 

[Wanman]

Here is a thread discussing audibility thresholds.

Hi, Just took a look the first link and I didn't see any references listed in support some of the statements. For example, not clear where certain stated concepts in the post come from in the literature, or if stated concepts are just the opinion of the member posting?

For example there is mention of thresholds, but IIUC the scientific definition of a 'threshold of audibility' or an 'absolute threshold of hearing' is statistical measure that refers to the 'average ear,' not all ears.

Looking at wiki page for absolute threshold it give this description:
"The absolute threshold of hearing (ATH) is the minimum sound level of a pure tone that an average human ear with normal hearing can hear with no other sound present. The absolute threshold relates to the sound that can just be heard by the organism.[1][2] The absolute threshold is not a discrete point, and is therefore classed as the point at which a sound elicits a response a specified percentage of the time.[1] This is also known as the auditory threshold."

Absolute threshold of hearing - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Its pretty clear that the term threshold applies to an average ear, not an ear at one extreme or another. To check on that, it seems an article turns up that is entitled: "Distribution Characteristics of Normal Pure-Tone Thresholds" It can be found at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4755736/pdf/nihms753302.pdf
On pages 13-14 there are statistical distributions that look roughly gaussian.

For ideal gaussian "the average" would seem to refer to the arithmetic average, aka the mean. For such a distribution, another reference says the following:
"The mean is the arithmetic average of a set of given numbers. Therefore, the mean in math is often referred to as simply the "average."
That is from: https://rb.gy/f321c

also, it can be seen that for an ideal gaussian distribution the mean is right in the middle of the curve. This is shown graphically with the mean labeled at: https://www.chegg.com/homework-help/definitions/normal-curve-31

Bottom line from all the above appears to be that from a scientific perspective a threshold represents the point at which 50% of the population cannot hear below that threshold, and the other 50% of population can hear below the threshold.

Therefore if someone states in forum post something that is different from the common scientific meaning of a threshold, they should provide some reference in the literature to support that assertion. Otherwise it appears to have no scientific basis.

 

[IPunchCholla]

Hi, Just took a look the first link and I didn't see any references listed in support some of the statements. For example, not clear where certain stated concepts in the post come from in the literature, or if stated concepts are just the opinion of the member posting?

For example there is mention of thresholds, but IIUC the scientific definition of a 'threshold of audibility' or an 'absolute threshold of hearing' is statistical measure that refers to the 'average ear,' not all ears.

Looking at wiki page for absolute threshold it give this description:
"The absolute threshold of hearing (ATH) is the minimum sound level of a pure tone that an average human ear with normal hearing can hear with no other sound present. The absolute threshold relates to the sound that can just be heard by the organism.[1][2] The absolute threshold is not a discrete point, and is therefore classed as the point at which a sound elicits a response a specified percentage of the time.[1] This is also known as the auditory threshold."

Absolute threshold of hearing - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Its pretty clear that the term threshold applies to an average ear, not an ear at one extreme or another. To check on that, it seems an article turns up that is entitled: "Distribution Characteristics of Normal Pure-Tone Thresholds" It can be found at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4755736/pdf/nihms753302.pdf
On pages 13-14 there are statistical distributions that look roughly gaussian.

For ideal gaussian "the average" would seem to refer to the arithmetic average, aka the mean. For such a distribution, another reference says the following:
"The mean is the arithmetic average of a set of given numbers. Therefore, the mean in math is often referred to as simply the "average."
That is from: https://rb.gy/f321c

also, it can be seen that for an ideal gaussian distribution the mean is right in the middle of the curve. This is shown graphically with the mean labeled at: https://www.chegg.com/homework-help/definitions/normal-curve-31

Bottom line from all the above appears to be that from a scientific perspective a threshold represents the point at which 50% of the population cannot hear below that threshold, and the other 50% of population can hear below the threshold.

Therefore if someone states in forum post something that is different from the common scientific meaning of a threshold, they should provide some reference in the literature to support that assertion. Otherwise it appears to have no scientific basis.

The underlined texts are links to the references.

 

[Geert]

Bottom line from all the above appears to be that from a scientific perspective a threshold represents the point at which 50% of the population cannot hear below that threshold, and the other 50% of population can hear below the threshold. Therefore if someone states in forum post something that is different from the common scientific meaning of a threshold, they should provide some reference in the literature to support that assertion. Otherwise it appears to have no scientific basis.

So how much better do the best ears perform according to the study you referenced, and does that pose a challenge to a modern well designed DAC? You also need to keep "normal listening conditions" in mind, referring to the ASR thread about audibility thresholds. This refers to things like background noise, listening volume (most people don't listen at 120dB) and recording dynamic range.

The study is also limited to the threshold of hearing, while in practise the threshold for audibility of distortion is more interesting. Here peoples capabilities comes nowhere close to the performance of a good DAC.