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

[graz_lag]

 

[LTig]

The only measurements made on this site are stuff that audio equipment makers are already listing specs on there spec charts, they arent anything speciallyh or any "new" audio science. Don't you people care about like how something acgtually sounds?

This is quite an insult, especially from a new member. We all care about music. In my flat you will find ~1000 CDs, ~1300 LPs and ~1 TB of music files (mp3, flac, ...). My main system uses very good 3-way active studio monitors with an active studio sub and room EQ - the same gear and settings you'll find in those studios which create the recordings you are listening to in the first place. I regularly visit live concerts of all kind (classical, opera, ballet, rock, jazz, ...). Do not tell me I don't care about music or its sound!

 

[GrimSurfer]

What did Bill Gates get his degree in? Oh that's right... Does that mean he doesn't have the ability to speak as en expert on...Anything?
I wonder how often he'd get dismissed by his staff as unqualified when he would question their results or issues, because probably 99% had more 'formal' education than he did?

Education isn't a precondition for expertise but merely a short cut to it. Anyone of average intelligence can develop an expertise in most things, provided they focus on it. If posts by our resident Poly-Sci major suggest anything it is that a lack of understanding of the fundamentals, reinforced by poor critical thinking skills, disqualifies him/her from legitimately claiming to be an expert on sound.

Don't confuse a question from a wise man as an example of expertise.

Bill didn't become one of the richest people in the world by being the best software writer in the world. He became one of the richest people in the world recruiting, organizing, and managing people who were among the best software writers in the world. It is this organizational skill that is having the greatest impact in the work of his foundation... since Bill Gates likely isn't the world's best epidemiologist either.

 

[BDWoody]

Education isn't a precondition for expertise but merely a short cut to it. Anyone of average intelligence can develop an expertise in most things, provided they focus on it. If posts by our resident Poly-Sci major suggest anything it is that a lack of understanding of the fundamentals, reinforced by poor critical thinking skills, disqualifies him/her from legitimately claiming to be an expert on sound.

Don't confuse a question from a wise man as an example of expertise.

Bill didn't become one of the richest people in the world by being the best software writer in the world. He became one of the richest people in the world recruiting, organizing, and managing people who were among the best software writers in the world. It is this organizational skill that is having the greatest impact in the work of his foundation... since Bill Gates likely isn't the world's best epidemiologist either.

Credentials often are not much more than keys to artificial threshold gates. If you don't need that key (as our man Bill clearly didn't...what was he going to get...a better job?) he could spend his time learning what he needed to.

 

[sergeauckland]

Don't you people care about like how something acgtually sounds?

I've refrained so far from getting involved with this thread, as it had turned into something much like every cable thread I''ve ever seen.

However, that question made me want to reply. No, I really don't care what anything sounds like to me, all I care about is that it should measure well, and therefore be transparent, just rendering as close a facsimile of the recording as possible.

Then I know that whatever I might think it sounds like is my problem/fault/whatever, not that of the equipment. The only thing then left is my room, which I have done the best I can with, and with the recording, which I can't do anything about.

I never ever want to change the equipment to make it sound "better" if in order to do that it doesn't measure as well. That's just a tone control by another name, and I have those already.

S.

 

[tential]

If you were to look at the subjective reviews of DAC's and CD players over the last 40 some years and put together each time a reviewer claimed the "huge" increase in SQ over the ones reviewed last (month, year, whatever) in a linear line then go back and compare one from the 80s-90s to today's you would expect the older ones to sound like an Edison cylinder. Not the case, any differences is mostly so minor as to be near inaudible.

This is what I try to explain each time some one asks about the audio quality increase each generation of product. If we say it's getting 15% better each year we could clearly tell the difference. 2% even. 1%. So in a blind test can they tell the difference between something today vs 20 years ago?

But at this point their eyes glaze over and they just want to know what optimizations the manufacturer made to the music mode to improve sound quality.

Literally one of my coworkers said, "I want to be marketed to." they want the story. Science isn't fun for a lot(maybe even most) of people.

 

[ashleydoormat]

Different metals don't conduct electricity in the same way.
Conductance does matter when low load impedances are in play.
Impedances have different resistance and phase characteristics for different frequencies.
Cables can have very different resistances and capacitances and somewhat differing inductances.
Some cables can easily pick up HF or audio frequency electric and magnetic fields and radiate them as well.
These differences exist due to geometry and used materials.
Cables do conduct signals differently with a 100% measurable certainty.
Science depends on this, even audio science depends on this.

One would have to ask the following questions.

When you say... cables sound different are you talking about
A: cables loading electro-mechanical sensors like microphones (of all kinds), MM or MC cartridge, Ceramic cartridge, magnetic pickups.
What is the source impedance of those 'sensors'... what is the frequency range they encompass ... what load impedance/resistance do they require to stay within specifications.
There are loads of different types of cables for those type of sensors.

B: Interlinks that conduct line-level signals.
What is the source resistance/impedance, in what type of environment are they used (heavy electro/magnetic screening required or not).
What is the length of the cable.
What is the load at the end of the cable (pure resistive.. with a capacitance or input transformer).
What type of connection is used (2 or 3 wire)
Is the ground connected
What screening is used
How high is the capacitance.
What is the desired upper frequency range (and specify how many attenuation at that frequency)

C: Digital cables
What type of connection is used. (SPDIF is not the same as the various USB options)
Which frequency range should it have to avoid to severe timing errors due to HF roll-off
What is the length of the cable
What is the source and load impedance as well as that of the cable.

D: Power cables
What current can they handle.
Are they used on a device that emits high levels of HF signals (due to poorly filtered SMPS for instance)
What is the length of the cable
Are there decent fitting connectors on it.
Are they fuse protected or not.
What currents actually pass through the cable

E: Speaker cables.
What is its length of the cable.
What is its resistance (round trip so 2 connectors added)
What is the load resistance
What is the power level that has to pass through the cable
What is the maximum frequency range you require
What is its capacitance

F: headphone cables.
What is the load impedance
What is its resistance
Is the cable a 3 or 4 wire connection.
Is the signal balanced or single ended and in case of the latter is the common resistance low
What is the length


Those are the aspects that matter (probably not all aspects are written down).
This means some cable are better suited for specific tasks than others and one cannot use the same cables for all circumstances.

What specific cables and sound qualitiy changes/properties are you talking about ?

Wow thanks to all good folks who had the patience to answer my questions! I didn't really have much experience with hearing much difference in different cables but one experience always stood out is that I changed the power cable of my entry level amp to an aftermarket thickish cable. I wasn't expecting anything and didn't know anything about special cable but I just liked the look of said thickish cable (it wan't expensive!) so I bought it lol. I heard my usual piece (forgot what that was) and the rhythm got faster. It was the first song and very noticeable right at the beginning. Sound quality wise I didn't notice anything different but I like fast tempo so that's a yes to me. In another instance I noticed a broader freq response (more mids and highs comparing to previous darkish tone) on my iems with a pcocc cable it wasn't night and day difference but it was also noticeable right at the beginning. The rest of the cable swapping weren't really noticeable to me I just keep them for their look!

So I gather that if I use cables made within specs as required by my equipment and am mindful of the length of the connection it shouldn't sound any differently (as someone mentioned the difference would be below noise floor)?

 

[GrimSurfer]

This is quite an insult, especially from a new member. We all care about music. In my flat you will find ~1000 CDs, ~1300 LPs and ~1 TB of music files (mp3, flac, ...). My main system uses very good 3-way active studio monitors with an active studio sub and room EQ - the same gear and settings you'll find in those studios which create the recordings you are listening to in the first place. I regularly visit live concerts of all kind (classical, opera, ballet, rock, jazz, ...). Do not tell me I don't care about music or its sound!

It's at times like this that one might say "consider the source", @LTig.

@lowiqaudiophilewgoldenear does not appear to have any expertise in audio. Therefore, his bold claims and facile observations carry about as much weight as the medical diagnoses of a faith healer.

As for new vs. old membership, I believe that stupid is stupid. Points aren't given for seniority, much as they aren't given for claims of expertise.

You know your way around audio, @LTig. This other guy clearly doesn't. He's an idiot, in the Classical Greek definition of the term.

 

[LTig]

Wow thanks to all good folks who had the patience to answer my questions! I didn't really have much experience with hearing much difference in different cables but one experience always stood out is that I changed the power cable of my entry level amp to an aftermarket thickish cable. I wasn't expecting anything and didn't know anything about special cable but I just liked the look of said thickish cable (it wan't expensive!) so I bought it lol. I heard my usual piece (forgot what that was) and the rhythm got faster.

I don't doubt your experience but this is physically impossible. Your CD player does not play faster when the amplifier gets a stronger power cable.

It makes sense to use a decent power cable with proper wire width, and the cheapest will do just fine. Usually though the wire width of the cable supplied by the maker is good enough. Big power amps come with thick power cables, but that does not mean that an amplifier with e.g. 2x40 W needs similar cables.

It was the first song and very noticeable right at the beginning. Sound quality wise I didn't notice anything different but I like fast tempo so that's a yes to me. In another instance I noticed a broader freq response (more mids and highs comparing to previous darkish tone) on my iems with a pcocc cable it wasn't night and day difference but it was also noticeable right at the beginning. The rest of the cable swapping weren't really noticeable to me I just keep them for their look!

I fear you fell victim to expectation bias. We all do, that's how we are made. Scientists found this out long ago and therefore listening reports are only valid when performed blind.

So I gather that if I use cables made within specs as required by my equipment and am mindful of the length of the connection it shouldn't sound any differently (as someone mentioned the difference would be below noise floor)?

Yep.

 

[audimus]

This is getting boring. You guys are running in circles around a problem that cannot be solved. ... And that is why we are not making any progress. I mean, given the circumstances, how could we..?!?

That was indeed my conclusion in the first post but then someone tried to introduce an incorrect science argument and also demonstrated that voting for a view that confirms one’s bias with likes isn’t science. It isn’t a democracy.

Uh huh.

So many words just to say "I don't want to prove my golden ears in a DBT".

I guess you didn’t read it to come to that conclusion since I have taken no position on golden ears of anybody nor claimed to have one. It just set the limitations of the arguments on both sides and why such debates are futile.

So whilst I don't dispute what you write, it is only relevant on a philosophical level. For an individual listening to music recordings it is easily dealt with by the individual, and a budget and short list suitably assembled.

Actually, no. The Paradigm PW testing showed a case where things not exposed by the testing was a factor in some people unable to use that device from what they heard. That is a practical demonstration. If you say only the effects of things that are measured are of interest in audibility and nothing else, then it is a tautology by circular definition that does not address the argument by the “can hear a difference” crowd.

Especially if it is being twisted to support hand waving.

An insinuation for which no evidence is presented despite the preciseness of the argument because it negates your thesis. This is what the difference between an echo chamber and a science debate. I don’t think people here should be going around as if they have science behind them while not subjecting themselves to its rigors. Otherwise, it is just science as a religion or at the minimum hypocrisy.

No need to go there. Let's start with the easy part - "demonstrated audible difference". Just you thinking you can hear an audible difference doesn't make it demonstrated. The burden of proof is still on you - to demonstrate there is an audible difference.

The above is actually a very good example of imprecise hand waving. This part is already covered in the first post and the second shows why this is an imprecise statement where null hypothesis does not apply.

You made the statement equivalent to the form “there are no unicorns in the universe” as a null hypothesis that puts the burden on the observer to disprove. I showed why the above is a not a valid null hypothesis while “there is no unicorn on earth” could be. So, now you have gone back to the latter which was already addressed in the first post as valid but not sufficient to settle the debate.

Like I concluded in the first post, the “science” in ASR is often just used to throw stones at an opposing group which would be no different than the opposing “golden ears” group throwing stones at the “measurement heads” for their limitations. This is a good demonstration of that.

In an echo chamber, you can get away with pseudo-science to cast stones and collect votes in support. But it is not search for truth any more or any less than empiricists.

 

[SIY]

“If can’t hear it without peeking, you can’t hear it. If you can hear it without peeking, you can hear it.”

This is not complicated.

 

[GrimSurfer]

If you were to look at the subjective reviews of DAC's and CD players over the last 40 some years and put together each time a reviewer claimed the "huge" increase in SQ over the ones reviewed last (month, year, whatever) in a linear line then go back and compare one from the 80s-90s to today's you would expect the older ones to sound like an Edison cylinder. Not the case, any differences is mostly so minor as to be near inaudible.

Very good point. My late 90s CD carousel with an integral 1-bit DAC with 8 x oversampling worked reasonably well. It had occasional buffering issues that I could hear. The jitter (which wasn't spec', so likely massive) and distortion (0.004%) were inaudible, as was what today would be seen as a substantial non-linearity.

The DAC and laptop-based server that replaced it were infinitely more capable. They have conversion capabilities that my carousel did not. Zero clocking/buffering errors and no mechanical noise (a forte of a purpose built DAC for music and a laptop with a solid state drive and a good chunk of RAM).

I could, therefore, hear a difference between the two when the buffering errors occurred... but musically? Nothing I'm confident enough to share.

Your point about the Edison cylinder is also a very good one, @Sal1950.

Given the number of times my shampoo has been "improved", my hair should be thick and silky instead of greying and thinning. Amazing to think I once had thick blond hair even though I was washing it with lye soap and using battery acid conditioner. Go figure...

 

[solderdude]

I didn't really have much experience with hearing much difference in different cables but one experience always stood out is that I changed the power cable of my entry level amp to an aftermarket thickish cable. I wasn't expecting anything and didn't know anything about special cable but I just liked the look of said thickish cable (it wan't expensive!) so I bought it lol. I heard my usual piece (forgot what that was) and the rhythm got faster. It was the first song and very noticeable right at the beginning.

I do not doubt you heard this. But in a technical sense this is not physically possible.
Even if the power cable had the thickness of an elephant and the one that was previously on there was lamp cord thickness it would not have mattered.
Yes the resistance of the thick cable would be measurably lower for certain. BUT the cable is not a limiting factor in this case. The transformer inside the amplifier is when it comes to power delivery. And that transformer can conduct far less current than the cable.
Also rhythm cannot possibly change and the amp cannot possibly become faster in any sense of the word.
AC pulses goes through a transformer and charge a smoothing capacitor. A mains cable cannot possibly change anything here.
Again I have no doubt you heard it ... but there is no technical explanation for it I am afraid.

In another instance I noticed a broader freq response (more mids and highs comparing to previous darkish tone) on my iems with a pcocc cable it wasn't night and day difference but it was also noticeable right at the beginning. The rest of the cable swapping weren't really noticeable to me I just keep them for their look!

There is no way a cable can change anything in the audible frequency range and far beyond. They simply can't do that. As far as I know the only cables that do make an audible difference (that is very measurable of course) are made by me.
IEM's are almost always 4 wire cables (common connected in the TRS plug) so channel separation cannot differ either.

I
So I gather that if I use cables made within specs as required by my equipment and am mindful of the length of the connection it shouldn't sound any differently (as someone mentioned the difference would be below noise floor)?

Yes, valid for speaker cables (resistance) is resistance (thus length, used conductor material and diameter).
Capacitance should not be abnormally high or when they are must be preceded by a small inductor.
For headphone cables: 3 wire cable is something that may be audible with low imp. headphones.
For interlinks... nothing really matters in most cases. With some rear tube pre-amps and long high capacitance cables some roll-off may become audible.

 

[lowiqaudiophilewgoldenear]

Ok, the trolling part is still very obvious. But you seem to be putting in a little more effort. Maybe 5 % improvement. But don't be satisfied too easily. Keep working on it. Like anything, the more you do it, the better you'll get at it. But it does behoove one to sometimes stop and ask if what they are trying to be makes the world a better place or not.

There are people here who can't even discern the rather ample difference between the resplendent imaging of the Schiit stack vs the stark, stripped down aesthetic of the RME ADI-2.

That was indeed my conclusion in the first post but then someone tried to introduce an incorrect science argument and also demonstrated that voting for a view that confirms one’s bias with likes isn’t science. It isn’t a democracy.



I guess you didn’t read it to come to that conclusion since I have taken no position on golden ears of anybody nor claimed to have one. It just set the limitations of the arguments on both sides and why such debates are futile.

Actually, no. The Paradigm PW testing showed a case where things not exposed by the testing was a factor in some people unable to use that device from what they heard. That is a practical demonstration. If you say only the effects of things that are measured are of interest in audibility and nothing else, then it is a tautology by circular definition that does not address the argument by the “can hear a difference” crowd.

An insinuation for which no evidence is presented despite the preciseness of the argument because it negates your thesis. This is what the difference between an echo chamber and a science debate. I don’t think people here should be going around as if they have science behind them while not subjecting themselves to its rigors. Otherwise, it is just science as a religion or at the minimum hypocrisy.

The above is actually a very good example of imprecise hand waving. This part is already covered in the first post and the second shows why this is an imprecise statement where null hypothesis does not apply.

You made the statement equivalent to the form “there are no unicorns in the universe” as a null hypothesis that puts the burden on the observer to disprove. I showed why the above is a not a valid null hypothesis while “there is no unicorn on earth” could be. So, now you have gone back to the latter which was already addressed in the first post as valid but not sufficient to settle the debate.

Like I concluded in the first post, the “science” in ASR is often just used to throw stones at an opposing group which would be no different than the opposing “golden ears” group throwing stones at the “measurement heads” for their limitations. This is a good demonstration of that.

In an echo chamber, you can get away with pseudo-science to cast stones and collect votes in support. But it is not search for truth any more or any less than empiricists.

Now here is a brillint man. Reminds me of all the rigorous statistics, propability theory,and predicate calculus I took during my rigorous educaiton in the political and economic science. logical conswequence relations are only semi-decidable, and thus there is doubt injected into any model so it isn't actually in the nature of science which is only grounded in science and math and logic to prove, so that is using science as religious dogma. At the end of the day, gravity might not suck an object into the earth just because of the a posterioroi limits of reasoning tomorrow the sun might not raise.

 

[SIY]

There are people here who can't even discern the rather ample difference between the resplendent imaging of the Schiit stack vs the stark, stripped down aesthetic of the RME ADI-2.



Now here is a brillint man. Reminds me of all the rigorous statistics, propability theory,and predicate calculus I took during my rigorous educaiton in the political and economic science. logical conswequence relations are only semi-decidable, and thus there is doubt injected into any model so it isn't actually in the nature of science which is only grounded in science and math and logic to prove, so that is using science as religious dogma. At the end of the day, gravity might not suck an object into the earth just because of the a posterioroi limits of reasoning tomorrow the sun might not raise.

Let’s see... 9... 7... 8.... 7.... 7. The judges give you a 7.6. Well done.

 

[scott wurcer]

There are people here who can't even discern the rather ample difference between the resplendent imaging of the Schiit stack vs the stark, stripped down aesthetic of the RME ADI-2.

The poetry starts.

 

[LTig]

There are people here who can't even discern the rather ample difference between the resplendent imaging of the Schiit stack vs the stark, stripped down aesthetic of the RME ADI-2.

Uh huh.

Depends on which Shiit device. Since many measure bad I wouldn't be surprised that a difference is audible in a DBT. Just try it and you'll see how much worth your claim has. What someone prefers however is his/her private opinion.

And learn how to cite correctly.

Now here is a brillint man. Reminds me of all the rigorous statistics, propability theory,and predicate calculus I took during my rigorous educaiton in the political and economic science. logical conswequence relations are only semi-decidable, and thus there is doubt injected into any model so it isn't actually in the nature of science which is only grounded in science and math and logic to prove, so that is using science as religious dogma. At the end of the day, gravity might not suck an object into the earth just because of the a posterioroi limits of reasoning tomorrow the sun might not raise.

At the end of the day the person who raises a claim against 80 years of collected scientific knowledge has to proof its claim. The proof has to be according to well known scientific standards (DBT). Otherwise the proof is worthless like all other sighted opinions.

 

[BDWoody]

Let’s see... 9... 7... 8.... 7.... 7. The judges give you a 7.6. Well done.

I don't know, people are still responding... Maybe they are just bored or on the can or something...

 

[garbulky]

I've refrained so far from getting involved with this thread, as it had turned into something much like every cable thread I''ve ever seen.

However, that question made me want to reply. No, I really don't care what anything sounds like to me, all I care about is that it should measure well, and therefore be transparent, just rendering as close a facsimile of the recording as possible.

Then I know that whatever I might think it sounds like is my problem/fault/whatever, not that of the equipment. The only thing then left is my room, which I have done the best I can with, and with the recording, which I can't do anything about.

I never ever want to change the equipment to make it sound "better" if in order to do that it doesn't measure as well. That's just a tone control by another name, and I have those already.

S.

I gotta say I have never encountered this perspective before. Thanks for sharing. I suppose this is where it has to go ultimately if you rely solely on measurements/accuracy. I just never thought of it that far.

So I have questions! Please don't feel like I'm piling on you. It's just a new perspective to me.

If everything sounds not very good, then you would be satisfied that you were getting an accurate albeit not pleasing sound?

What about if you had hearing loss and a boost in high frequencies helped things out? Would you rather stick with accurate because that's was more accurate? How do you feel about room correction?
Would you be willing to go a step further and go headphones only and eliminate the room as a factor? Headphones can have remarkably low distortion compared to speakers.

 

[BDWoody]

The poetry starts.