Another long-winded debating enthusiast? View attachment 35513
We are all really just music lovers here
Another long-winded debating enthusiast? View attachment 35513
This is amusing. On one hand, you are conceding that there are things that are not measured which can have audible differences which is the main point of the audible different crowd. On the other hand, you seem to be implying that the common ones are the only ones that affect the quality of sound reproduction and hence audibility. They are in total contradiction.Pick one. If you pick the former, then you would be right and in agreement with the people who claim there may be audible differences not captured by the current set of agreements. If you pick the latter, then that would be incorrect with the argument we just had for the former.
Why would I want to do that? It is not necessary to show a flaw in the thesis from the measurement crowd. If you want to be practical and say look, we cannot measure everything and there may very well be things not measured that may make an audible difference, you would not be necessarily agreeing that there is such a gap but allowing for that possibility which, from a scientific debate perspective, would be valid and you would be in agreement with people from the other side who are saying the same thing. This is what I pointed out in my very first post.
I am just amused at the apparent dogma people want to cling on to instead claiming science is backing them up while using invalid science methodology (of inference and interpretation].
This is irrelevant to the discussion of what conjectures are provable or not.
The answer is very simple. And pointed above. The reason you are in a dilemma and even believe it is in a false dilemma is because you are looking at certain statements as being proven or not. My main point really from the very first post on this is that, science does allow for something called a conjecture. This may very well be true but there is no proof for it. You can even use that as a working hypothesis and proceed on that basis as long as you are open to that conjecture being proved wrong.
The problem happens here (and I don’t mean you personally) is when that conjecture is invalidly considered a proven fact by people who hold it as a dogma and use it to throw stones at opposing conjectures as if science was behind them but not the opposing vconjecture (the equivalent of the bible thumpers who don’t understand the bible) and/or they hold their non-falsifiable conjectures as proven unless the opposing views falsify it. This is counter to what we know as science. That was the only point of my very first post. May want to go back and read it again in that light.
No, I am only considering in validated perceptions, audible observations that can pass the infallibility tests as designed by the measurement crowd and the audio sciences. Nothing else.
The behavior of the Emotiva processor that was caught by measurements and the behavior of the PW Paradigm Link which creates very audible and confirmed pops which can even be recorded (not something one can attribute to some bias or whatever) between tracks which is audible but not caught by this particular set of ASR measurements. I have already explained this several times in the arguments above on why that is important in the context of this discussion and so not going to hash it all over again.
The above is a strawman not argued against at all. The subtlety of the distinctions made still seems to be eluding you.
There is a difference between a conjecture that holds
1. with any particular finite set of measurements (comprehensive or not is ill-defined and irrelevant), there will be no audible differences heard for two devices that measure the same.
AND
2. this set of measurements capture any and all audible differences
Both are valid conjectures to hold, the first one is a valid null hypothesis where the burden is on the person who claims to here a difference. But the fact that at any point in time, no one has come forward with such a proof is not proof for concluding the second statement above because the first one is falsifiable but not provable. The first one can be falsified by a single example. The audible quality of pops not captured by the measurements on this site with some digital zero inputs for a certain piece of equipment is existential proof that these set of ASR measurements as they exist do not capture all audible qualities.
The second statement is non-falsifiable and while someone may hold this as a conjecture the burden of proof for that will have to be on the person holding the belief. This is the conjecture for which there is a counter and equally valid conjecture that for any finite set of measurements, there will be some audible difference that cannot be measured by that set of measurement. Of course, the burden of proof will be on the holder of such a conjecture just like the counterpart.
By continuing to conflate the two very different conjectures with imprecise statements whether for audio, unicorns or big foot (ignoring snarky intent), you are continuing to miss the point of the very first post on this topic and the subsequent elaborations of the same.
that conjecture is invalidly considered a proven fact by people who hold it as a dogma and use it to throw stones at opposing conjectures as if science was behind them
So many words! And yet, in all of that you are missing the most obvious part: nobody here insists (or cares) that Amir's tests don't cover every conceivable fault in a device. You put up a straw man argument, and you keep arguing against it. Is this fun for you?
Who are these people that hold this conjecture as dogma? Who insists that the few tests posted in a review cover every possible issue that may exist in a device or may surface just under the right conditions?
Going back to this original post, I have now tested close to 200 DACs. And many with amplifiers which I then tested subjectively. I have yet to find this magic audio product that "distorts more but sounds better." They either distort more but sound the same, or distort more but sound worse.The main problem is actually that there is a confusion. They think that we mean that what makes a DAC "objectively good" is a TRANSPARENT DAC, and that we first define a good dac as a transparent DAC and then say that the measurements prove that the DAC is transparent, and therefore it is the better DAC. They think there are other dacs that are not transparent, but rather, color the sound in a good way, and therefore "measure worse" but sound better.
I just bought a $10,000 kimber cable, and after 2 years it finally is sounding its best.
Just talking about DACs you are probably right about that (even if it is not provably true) especially given how far upstream these things are relative to things that affect audibility much more.Going back to this original post, I have now tested close to 200 DACs. And many with amplifiers which I then tested subjectively. I have yet to find this magic audio product that "distorts more but sounds better." They either distort more but sound the same, or distort more but sound worse.
And that says we better forget about the argument that people have preference for this or that audio product. Or that they hear distortions they like.
If you limit “distortion” to harmonic distortions and noise floors, you are likely right. But if you consider a broader definition of “distortion” as deviation from input including deviations in frequency domains, then it is much less true and where real preferences come into play.Heck, I think most audiophiles are terrible at hearing distortions anyway. These distortion products are too low to be audible for just about anyone.
The problem is that we do not have a good model or a definitive measurement or a mechanistic explanation of what contributes to a better soundstage (or better detail or whatever golden ear terms are used) in the entire audio chain. If we did, then we could potentially and validly assert that since DACs (or some other audio devices) do not change anything in that measurement, they are unlikely to really contribute to that audible perception.As to how to convince others, I don't know how to repeat my experience for others to be convinced. Best they can do is perform a blind test and see if they can still detect "better soundstage, etc." in their favorite DAC. Once they fail that, maybe they learn the truth there.
Transducers? The topic is about DACs, not transducers. And my testing includes headphone amplifiers so goes beyond just DACs.Just talking about DACs you are probably right about that (even if it is not provably true) especially given how far upstream these things are relative to things that affect audibility much more.
But I would be careful about generalizing that to all audio products. The closer you get to transducers in the chain, weaker that conjecture becomes.
Frequency roll off doesn't need a debate about audibility. In DACs however, frequency response variations are very rare. I can't even think of one right now.This needs a lot of clarifications and caveats to be true in general for all products in the chain. There are many types of distortion. An amp or a speaker that rolls off the higher frequencies is “distorting” in a technical sense but yet it may appeal to people who like a “warmer” sound. This preference is real, not fictious.
I didn't use any measurements in my statement. I used my ears in controlled testing. Have yet to hear soundstage differences.The problem is that we do not have a good model or a definitive measurement or a mechanistic explanation of what contributes to a better soundstage (or better detail or whatever golden ear terms are used) in the entire audio chain.
I didn't use any measurements in my statement. I used my ears in controlled testing. Have yet to hear soundstage differences.
Sometimes higher frequency exaggeration and or noise can make a slight difference in perceived soundstage but it is small. And at any rate, doesn't come close to explaining people constantly saying this or that piece of electronics has different soundstage. They just don't if you match levels, keep the same channel orientation and do an instant AB switch.
Not really. Every headphone amplifier subjective review I read comes with description of how its soundstage is different. Just finished a review and watched two videos on them and both were talking at length about supposed soundstage differences.And you're using headphones... most of the anecdotal evidence to support magical soundstage variations seem to come from those with exotic speakers listening in their rooms.
Not really. Every headphone amplifier subjective review I read comes with description of how its soundstage is different. Just finished a review and watched two videos on them and both were talking at length about supposed soundstage differences.
Transducers? The topic is about DACs, not transducers. And my testing includes headphone amplifiers so goes beyond just DACs.
And that says we better forget about the argument that people have preference for this or that audio product
I think it holds pretty well for the last link in the chain prior to the speakers... Nordost and others would disagree. Also wouldn't that make amps the next most variable?Yes, I know you go beyond DACs for measuring, just saying the same assertions about DACs (less likely to have any deviations that create audibly preferred sound) gets weaker as we go down the audio chain all the way up to the speakers.
And you're using headphones... most of the anecdotal evidence to support magical soundstage variations seem to come from those with exotic speakers listening in their rooms. I've always wondered about that... but with detailed measurements not often available, it's difficult to dispute objectively (though even harder to support).
I notice significant changes (in-room) to the soundstaging when I scoot up on the couch a tiny little bit, or lean a few inches to one side, or look out the window for a second. If the listening isn't just done with perfect level-matching, but also with a head-vise guaranteeing identical placement in the room - what are the odds that the listener isn't the most significant contributor of change? And although not champions, I've heard those changes with speakers that were pretty decent in both the horizontal and vertical. If your "reference speaker" is something that's very directional at all... is it even possible to truly hear the exact same soundstage in two separate sessions (even with the same gear)? Obviously, that's without even debating how much of that phenomenon is purely psychoacoustic and not actually happening (in the way we experience it, at least).
Going back to this original post, I have now tested close to 200 DACs. And many with amplifiers which I then tested subjectively. I have yet to find this magic audio product that "distorts more but sounds better." They either distort more but sound the same, or distort more but sound worse.
I must say, before I had done all this testing, I thought such animals could exist. But I now have more experience with this than anyone else I think. And that says we better forget about the argument that people have preference for this or that audio product. Or that they hear distortions they like.
Heck, I think most audiophiles are terrible at hearing distortions anyway. These distortion products are too low to be audible for just about anyone.
So it all nets down to how far down the transparency road we can get.
As to how to convince others, I don't know how to repeat my experience for others to be convinced. Best they can do is perform a blind test and see if they can still detect "better soundstage, etc." in their favorite DAC. Once they fail that, maybe they learn the truth there.
Indeed. How many people can accurately tell the distance between two objects in front of them with their eyes? And that's one of the primary tasks our eyes and brain do all the time. I'd love to see 3 listeners describe the exact same "distance" between the lead vocalist and a guitarist on the same track. I'd guess the differences would be measured in at least half the width of the room - if not farther. After all, great audiophile gear can "throw a stage wider and deeper than the room itself" - I read about it all the time in reviews.I would like to know how to correlate the listener's soundstage perception to the source, whether it be the recording or the performance. I feel there is a lot of 'whistling Dixie' with this topic.
I didn't use any measurements in my statement. I used my ears in controlled testing. Have yet to hear soundstage differences.
Sometimes higher frequency exaggeration and or noise can make a slight difference in perceived soundstage but it is small. And at any rate, doesn't come close to explaining people constantly saying this or that piece of electronics has different soundstage. They just don't if you match levels, keep the same channel orientation and do an instant AB switch.