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

[Vini darko]

This thread

 

[raistlin65]

Hi,

Disingenuous ? Isn't that a diplomatic way to tell me you think I am stupid ?

And your argument is to say "You're wrong because you don't think like I do". At lest this is what I read...

I don't force anyone in here to hear a difference when they're convinced there aren't (or can't be).

I am only stating that, as far as I am concerned, I am convinced that, when I listen to music with different devices, I can "feel" the difference.
I expect science to tell me why that happens.
Not that I am wrong.
If the explanation is "That is psychology", I am OK with that.
After all psychology is a science too, is it not ?

And I will stop replying here.
It's just a waste of time.
Unfortunately, I haven't that much spare time to waste :-(

I'll simply continue to live in my world of biased beliefs.
After all, my quest is just for pleasure.
If a device gives me that, then I am happy with it...
Despite what all measurements can tell, it is perfect TO ME.

If your pleasure is to have the device that has the best measures, fine.
If that device gives you satisfaction when you listen to music, it is perfect FOR YOU.
And if you like it, I do respect that even if I disagree (which is not always the case).

Best regards.

No. I don't think you are stupid. You clearly seem disingenuous. Might want to look up what that word means.

You made some statements with faulty assumptions about the objective point of view

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...s-a-sound-signature.9245/page-102#post-586909

I replied, in good faith, with explanations of why some of those statements are faulty

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...s-a-sound-signature.9245/page-102#post-586923

Rather than engaging with what I said, you have continued to rant and make further statements based on faulty assumptions.

 

[Robin L]

Really ?

Do you think I am that stupid ?

YES :
I listened to Dvorak's 9th by Leopold Ludwig using DAC A, headphone amp A and headphones A.
Then I listened to Beethoven's 9th by Karajan and used DAC B, headphone amp B and heaphones B.

And guess what : I found out that there was a difference !

My conclusion is simple : Dvorak is not Beethoven. Beethoven is not Dvorak...

Seriously ?

Dvořák is usually happier than Beethoven.
Dvořák had a better diet than Beethoven.
Dvořák had a better home life than Beethoven.
Beethoven took more drugs than Dvořák .
Beethoven went totally deaf, Dvořák did not.
Beethoven is a better composer than Dvořák .

 

[Julf]

Disingenuous ? Isn't that a diplomatic way to tell me you think I am stupid ?

"Definition of disingenuous: lacking in candor also : giving a false appearance of simple frankness: CALCULATING"

And your argument is to say "You're wrong because you don't think like I do". At lest this is what I read...

Yes, that seems to be what you read.

I am only stating that, as far as I am concerned, I am convinced that, when I listen to music with different devices, I can "feel" the difference.
I expect science to tell me why that happens.

And science has told you. So have we. It is called "expectation bias".

If the explanation is "That is psychology", I am OK with that.

Are you?

After all psychology is a science too, is it not?

Mostly, yes.

 

[PenguinMusic]

No. I don't think you are stupid. You clearly seem disingenuous. Might want to look up what that word means.

You made some statements with faulty assumptions about the objective point of view

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...s-a-sound-signature.9245/page-102#post-586909

I replied, in good faith, with explanations of why some of those statements are faulty

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...s-a-sound-signature.9245/page-102#post-586923

Rather than engaging with what I said, you have continued to rant and make further statements based on faulty assumptions.

OK. No more comments... You're right.

 

[PenguinMusic]

"Definition of disingenuous: lacking in candor also : giving a false appearance of simple frankness: CALCULATING"



Yes, that seems to be what you read.



And science has told you. So have we. It is called "expectation bias".



Are you?



Mostly, yes.

Still, no comment.

 

[Julf]

Still, no comment.

Still, the "no comment" comment.

I am still not a reporter.

 

[Sukie]

Rather than simply denying that subjective methods might produce valid results, the true scientists among the objectivist throne ought to be looking at scientific explanations for subjective results.

There are clear scientific explanations that explain subjective results. The science of cognitive psychology.

 

[Feanor]

To answer the thread question 102 pages ago... You sell them a $35,000 DAC.

For what it's worth I bought a Topping DX7s DAC+headphone amp based on ASR recommendation. That resulted in my selling my 3x more expensive DAC for much more than I paid for the Topping, and keeping the latter.

Likewise I recently acquired a Purifi 1ET400A amp based on ASR testing, replacing a 5X more expensive Pass Labs amp.

 

[Feanor]

There are clear scientific explanations that explain subjective results. The science of cognitive psychology.

There a smug answers for a lot of things.

 

[PenguinMusic]

Still, the "no comment" comment.

I am still not a reporter.

What other can I say ?
You have certainties. I have doubts.
I envy you...

 

[PenguinMusic]

There are clear scientific explanations that explain subjective results. The science of cognitive psychology.

Hi,

Anyone a cognitive psychologist in here ?

 

[Sukie]

If the explanation is "That is psychology", I am OK with that.
After all psychology is a science too, is it not ?

That is the explanation. What you perceive can be explained by cognitive psychology rather than by the qualities inherent in a DAC.

Your perception is not false, it's just that it has nothing to do with the DAC (unless the DAC is badly engineered, broken etc.).

 

[Sukie]

Hi,

Anyone a cognitive psychologist in here ?

I'm not a cognitive psychologist but do have an awareness of the impact of the discipline and how it might be applicable to situations/practices/discourses etc.. Otherwise why would I have mentioned it?

 

[Sukie]

There a smug answers for a lot of things.

Sorry, is that an answer? I have replied to your post with an honest answer. The science of cognitive psychology helps to explain subjective responses in many areas and walks of life. What on earth is smug about that? Are you wanting to engage or not?

 

[Feanor]

Sorry, is that an answer? I have replied to your post with an honest answer. The science of cognitive psychology helps to explain subjective responses in many areas and walks of life. What on earth is smug about that? Are you wanting to engage or not?

Yes, sure, cognitive psychology explains a lot. There are audiophiles who firmly believe that 'Brilliant Pebbles' make for better sound; (see ... https://www.machinadynamica.com/machina31.htm). I believe that cognitive psychology explains why some people do.

I can't prove to you that I hear difference between, say, amplifiers or even op amps but I have heard such differences. I can't explain to you why or how I hear these differences, (other than that I'm an attentive listener). If you are happier believing it's all my imagination, then be content.

Brilliant Pebbles ==>

 

[PenguinMusic]

That is the explanation. What you perceive can be explained by cognitive psychology rather than by the qualities inherent in a DAC.

Your perception is not false, it's just that it has nothing to do with the DAC (unless the DAC is badly engineered, broken etc.).

Hi,

As I said, I can live with that.
That is not a problem for me.
And I don't think I have ever tried to force any member of this forum upon my convictions...

But the second part of the statement is what I am not comfortable with.

Here is why.
There is a statement that a DAC can have no sound signature.
Is that correct ?

And then I am told "Unless it is not well engineered".
This is what I do not understand.
How can something that can't have sound signature be given a sound signature if it is badly engineered ?

But as I am no scientist, I will probably understand nothing in the answers given here :-(

Regards.

 

[BDWoody]

How can something that can't have sound signature be given a sound signature if it is badly engineered ?

Any differences heard would mean one distorts or has more noise than the other to the extent of becoming audible beyond some point. Whether someone likes that or not isn't the question, but that there isn't anything else it could be.

Sometimes that could be a conscious design choice, like adding a tube to Schiit's excellent Freya, the purpose being to provide distortion, but more often it is just because the device was designed with enough flaws that you end up hearing them.

Either way, it's like pre-seasoning everything. Might work out... Might not... But why choose a dirty window when clean ones are everywhere. If I want a dirty window, I'll throw dirt on my window.

 

[Sukie]

There is a statement that a DAC can have no sound signature.
Is that correct ?

That's correct, as long as the DAC is transparent (see below).

And then I am told "Unless it is not well engineered".
This is what I do not understand.
How can something that can't have sound signature be given a sound signature if it is badly engineered ?

It will have a sound signature if it's badly engineered. (This might be a deliberate "feature".) This will be due to colouration/distortion or whatever word you choose. The key thing here is that this sound signature will show up in a DAC's measurements.

Essentially all DACs do not sound the same. But all DACs that measure well (and thereby show no issues that are within audible range) will sound the same.

 

[Julf]

There is a statement that a DAC can have no sound signature.
Is that correct ?

No, not if stated that way.

And then I am told "Unless it is not well engineered".
This is what I do not understand.
How can something that can't have sound signature be given a sound signature if it is badly engineered ?

Really? You really don't understand the difference between "A DAC can easily be made totally neutral, with no coloration or 'sound signature'", and "not all DACs are made totally neutral. Some have coloration and a sound signature. Sometimes on purpose, to please subjective taste, and sometimes because the "designer" is a self-taught marketeer"?