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

[amirm]

I'm still amazed in the age of built-in spell checking how someone with an advanced education fails to properly spell so many words in every post.

Might be using a phone or tablet.

 

[GrimSurfer]

My ancient iPad does spell checking on the fly. Sometimes my typing speed can catch it out...

 

[Ron Texas]

Is this for real?

 

[watchnerd]

The one where "dude" has cool tats, a boss piercing, and is wearing a toque to keep his natty dreds on the down-lo?

Gotta keep those hipster dreds out of the hand made coils, d00d.

 

[Willhelm_Scream]

......................
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.

There are powerful skeptical arguments that can introduce doubt into any epistemic system. Does that mean we should consider such arguments? Perhaps for the purpose of philosophical navel gazing, it can be a valuable intellectual exercise to take a look at the limits of statistics and experiment design, and the limits of human knowledge altogether. Does that mean there are two equally dogmatic camps here in these arguments on ASR, where the dogmatic "I believe in my own sense experiences and I hear a difference" camp is up against the dogmatic "controlled experiments and measurements" camp? Hardly. To frame the argument in such a way, and act like you are the rational skeptic above it all, because you understand the limits of human knowledge will not win you any points here. If anything you are simply framing a false dilemma. There is a significant difference between obstinate belief in the memories of ones own sense impressions, and belief in the results of a double-blind experiment grounded in statistics coupled with the results of an audio analysis machine showing no differences except distortion outside of the range of human audibility. Can beliefs founded on such grounds be wrong? Yes of course they can. But such beliefs are inherently skeptical in that they actually seek to control the main skeptical problems with empiricism. You are saying okay, let's design an experiment that will help to rule out differences in results caused by faulty memory of sense impressions, and placebo effects, and other perceptual anomalies or confounding variables. To frame these two opposing camps as positions of equal force, and step back and say you aren't going to take a position because of it, is to take a 3rd dogmatic position in its own category. To quote Asimov, "When people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

 

[Wombat]

There are powerful skeptical arguments that can introduce doubt into any epistemic system. Does that mean we should consider such arguments? Perhaps for the purpose of philosophical navel gazing, it can be a valuable intellectual exercise to take a look at the limits of statistics and experiment design, and the limits of human knowledge altogether. Does that mean there are two equally dogmatic camps here in these arguments on ASR, where the dogmatic "I believe in my own sense experiences and I hear a difference" camp is up against the dogmatic "controlled experiments and measurements" camp? Hardly. To frame the argument in such a way, and act like you are the rational skeptic above it all, because you understand the limits of human knowledge will not win you any points here. If anything you are simply framing a false dilemma. There is a significant difference between obstinate belief in the memories of ones own sense impressions, and belief in the results of a double-blind experiment grounded in statistics coupled with the results of an audio analysis machine showing no differences except distortion outside of the range of human audibility. Can beliefs founded on such grounds be wrong? Yes of course they can. But such beliefs are inherently skeptical in that they actually seek to control the main skeptical problems with empiricism. You are saying okay, let's design an experiment that will help to rule out differences in results caused by faulty memory of sense impressions, and placebo effects, and other perceptual anomalies or confounding variables. To frame these two opposing camps as positions of equal force, and step back and say you aren't going to take a position because of it, is to take a 3rd dogmatic position in its own category. To quote Asimov, "When people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

Some paragraphing, please.

 

[watchnerd]

Koetsu doesn't appear to specify if they use jadeite or nephrite in their "jade" cartridges. That seems suspect to me. Probably synthetic or some other stone altogether, and they just say "jade" in an attempt to impress the general public, who don't know of the important distinctions between the two types.

If one actually believes that blue onyx (higher priced than the "jade" cartridge, for example) is superior to other minerals for use in cartridges, then surely it's obvious that jadeite and nephrite with different hardness and other properties cannot be conflated. FAIL! Do some customers "luck out" and get jadeite, while other customers get nephrite (or vice versa, jadeite is considered superior as a gem or for sculptures, but nephrite might be superior as a cartridge material haha).

So even if it isn't all just snake oil, Koetsu would still be guilty of potential fraud! hahaha!

Now, if they had amber cartridges with Triassic Era thrips trapped inside, that would be worth something, even if it had no sonic benefit haha!

They're infused with the essence of the jade dragon at the Koetsu-ji temple, little padwan....

 

[digicidal]

They're infused with the essence of the jade dragon at the Koetsu-ji temple, little padwan....

I have no idea if that helps the sound of the cartridge... but I guarantee if I could listen to a record while enjoying that beautiful Japanese temple garden... it would sound absolutely divine!

 

[Frank Dernie]

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.

Whilst it is true that loudspeaker and headphone measurements and presentation of results are complex in the case of electronics there is only the electrical connection between boxes and they can only carry an electrical signal all the parameters of which can definitely be measured to a level of accuracy way above audibility.
The fact that some people obsess about which chip may be in a box, or what sort of power supply it may have is completely irrelevant, ridiculous even. The "can hear a difference crowd" tend to be unconvinced by double blind tests since they show that they can not.

What appeals to people about different loudspeakers, otoh, is subject to much experiment but so far I have never seen a set of measurements indicating that any speaker has below audible levels of imperfection.

 

[BillG]

Saying a DAC has a sound signature is like saying a cable has a sound signature

Given the number of poorly implemented, but rather expensive, DACs that have come up way short in performance when analyzed here recently, I'd venture a guess that those specific ones do have an audible "signature". Whether their designers intended this remains a mystery thus far...

 

[Frank Dernie]

Koetsu doesn't appear to specify if they use jadeite or nephrite in their "jade" cartridges. That seems suspect to me. Probably synthetic or some other stone altogether, and they just say "jade" in an attempt to impress the general public, who don't know of the important distinctions between the two types.

If one actually believes that blue onyx (higher priced than the "jade" cartridge, for example) is superior to other minerals for use in cartridges, then surely it's obvious that jadeite and nephrite with different hardness and other properties cannot be conflated. FAIL! Do some customers "luck out" and get jadeite, while other customers get nephrite (or vice versa, jadeite is considered superior as a gem or for sculptures, but nephrite might be superior as a cartridge material haha).

So even if it isn't all just snake oil, Koetsu would still be guilty of potential fraud! hahaha!

Now, if they had amber cartridges with Triassic Era thrips trapped inside, that would be worth something, even if it had no sonic benefit haha!

In the few tests I havce seen of Koetsu cartridges the "jemstone" bodied ones were considerably inferior to the black and rosewood with huge roll-off of high frequencies. Certainly an audible difference, perhaps again relying on [very expensive + sounds different] must = better in the opinion of many enthusiasts??

 

[solderdude]

How did you make your cables measurably and audibly different than other cables?

With a soldering iron, simulations, measurements as well as listening and components.
Only works on specific headphones though

 

[digicidal]

What appeals to people about different loudspeakers, otoh, is subject to much experiment but so far I have never seen a set of measurements indicating that any speaker has below audible levels of imperfection.

Yep. A speaker which is +/-2dB (or even slightly worse) from 20Hz-20kHz is a fantastic specification... and likely cost $15K+ (at least) while being hailed as a "amazingly accurate speaker" - a DAC or AMP that was that far from perfectly linear would be considered a massive failure even at $100.

 

[LTig]

With a soldering iron, simulations, measurements as well as listening and components.
Only works on specific headphones though

Would you mind sharing what's inside those cables?

 

[solderdude]

I do share this.... here
granted not all schematics are in there atm. but on request I will post the schematic there for those wanting to DIY.

 

[LTig]

I do share this.... here
granted not all schematics are in there atm. but on request I will post the schematic there for those wanting to DIY.

Thanks. HD800 please.

 

[solderdude]

Thanks. HD800 please.

updated.

 

[Snafu]

The one where "dude" has cool tats, a boss piercing, and is wearing a toque to keep his natty dreds on the down-lo?

night king-tattoo must have been good idea... around season 5 or so.

Just like naming your kid as "khalesi" or something similar...

 

[ashleydoormat]

I do share this.... here
granted not all schematics are in there atm. but on request I will post the schematic there for those wanting to DIY.

Hey Frans I actually talked to you on your blog lol. I have a pair of Shure SRH1540 I really like. Do you have a schematic for the cable for these phones?

 

[watchnerd]

night king-tattoo must have been good idea... around season 5 or so.

Oh, is that what that is?

I thought it was a bad version of Iron Maiden's "Eddie".