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

[raif71]

Basically you are refusing to do meaningful tests, and insisting we take your ideas on this seriously. When you've completely undermined your own credibility before hand.

Sighted listening bias and all is fine. Sighted listening tests are another matter.

Yes, my subjective opinions are mine. Feel free to ignore.

 

[PenguinMusic]

Basically you are refusing to do meaningful tests, and insisting we take your ideas on this seriously. When you've completely undermined your own credibility before hand.

Sighted listening bias and all is fine. Sighted listening tests are another matter.

Hi,

Maybe he did not meant that he doesn't want to do the test properly.
But according to very respected people in here, do a properly setup test is really, really difficult.
And it implies several measurement tools to make sure the test is made properly.

So of course, it is difficult to do it :-(
I think that is what he meant when he replied.

But as I am not the author of that post, I cannot say for sure but this is how I did understand it.

As far as I am concerned, I know litterally NO ONE having the proper tools to conduct the test in the correct set-up.
If I would, I can assure I would have done it.
Unfortunately I cannot...
And I envy you, people who can do it.
Because I assume that everyone saying 2 DACs (if well engineered and designed and not broken) cannot have a sound signature have performed listening tests under the conditions they will only consider as valid to prove otherwise.

But to go back to the topic of this thread, may I remind that the question was "How do you deal with people thinking a DAC has a SOUND SIGNATURE".
Maybe we should tell what we consider a sound signature.
On the last 7/8 pages I was under the impression that "sound signature" was considered as equivalent of "bad design and egnineering".

Here is my question (and as for the question that started it all, it is serious).
Can we agree on this statement ? "The Topping E30 can be considered as a DAC that is well designed, well engineered".
If not, of course, there will be a problem.
But let's take it that we agree on this.

Now let's assume we get a Topping E30 that is not broken.
Let's put that into use.
If you read the manual, you'll find out that the Topping E30 included several filters (I think it has 6 of them).

So my questions are : if I change the filters,
- will I be able to measure a difference in the sound that is coming out of the DAC ?
- will that difference be audible ?

Regards.

 

[RayDunzl]

Because I assume that everyone saying 2 DACs (if well engineered and designed and not broken) cannot have a sound signature have performed listening tests under the conditions they will only consider as valid to prove otherwise.

Audio Buddy brought over his new DAC.

His is described with some flowery language in the ad copy.

"extraordinarily rich, full-bodied musical experience few standalone products can match"
"perfect foundation for those unwilling to compromise"
"Rich. Lush. Powerful"
"the answer to spiraling cost-no-object equipment without sacrifice"

Mine has (maybe) more objective language, and an extensive set of measurements, and so forth.

"has lower noise and lower distortion than (previous) converter"
"exceeds the measurement limits of some of today's best test equipment"
"outstanding musical detail and precise stereo imaging"
"advanced high-headroom digital filter design"
"fully isolated from interface jitter"

I have enough tools to level match, and to exchange the DAC playing was just a click on the remote.

Other guy clicks, so, blind swaps to the tested listener.

After some initial screwups, we couldn't tell a difference between his and mine.

The initial screwup was big, too. had us both going "Wow! This new DAC is amazing!", along with a big side serving of "What? Huh? No way!"

After fixing that problem, there were some measurable differences, a little bit in level, a little in distortion,, but not to an audible level.

 

[solderdude]

So my questions are : if I change the filters,
- will I be able to measure a difference in the sound that is coming out of the DAC ?
- will that difference be audible ?

Yes, with some (slow) filters you will measure audible roll-of and may be plagued by aliasing artifacts.
Whether this is audible depends on the recordings, your age and transducers.
The fact that the DAC chip manufacturer includes several filters because customers and DAC device manufacturers 'demand' it and they do want to sell DAC chips is the reason why it is there and why DAC device manufacturers decide to use one filter, or make them select-able for the user is another matter.
The E30 is really only adhering to the sampling theorem when the owner selects the fast linear phase (or close to it) fast filters.

It is really easy to test audibility of the filters blind. All it takes is a helper and the listener not knowing. See how well you can detect audible differences then. You need enough statistical valid attempts.

 

[PenguinMusic]

Audio Buddy brought over his new DAC.

His is described with some flowery language in the ad copy.

"extraordinarily rich, full-bodied musical experience few standalone products can match"
"perfect foundation for those unwilling to compromise"
"Rich. Lush. Powerful"
"the answer to spiraling cost-no-object equipment without sacrifice"

Mine has (maybe) more objective language, and an extensive set of measurements, and so forth.

"has lower noise and lower distortion than (previous) converter"
"exceeds the measurement limits of some of today's best test equipment"
"outstanding musical detail and precise stereo imaging"
"advanced high-headroom digital filter design"
"fully isolated from interface jitter"

I have enough tools to level match, and to exchange the DAC playing was just a click on the remote.

After some initial screwups, we couldn't tell a difference between his and mine.

There were some measurable differences, but not to an audible level.

Hi,

Thanks for sharing this.

That was not the mean question in the post.

But if you say you did perform those tests, and if you claim you did them under acceptable circumstances, I'll take your word for it.

But I find this quite funny.
After all, the DAC sounded the same...
So was the "flowery" description less accurate than the (maybe) more objective one ?

 

[Blumlein 88]

Hi,

Maybe he did not meant that he doesn't want to do the test properly.
But according to very respected people in here, do a properly setup test is really, really difficult.
And it implies several measurement tools to make sure the test is made properly.

So of course, it is difficult to do it :-(
I think that is what he meant when he replied.

But as I am not the author of that post, I cannot say for sure but this is how I did understand it.

As far as I am concerned, I know litterally NO ONE having the proper tools to conduct the test in the correct set-up.
If I would, I can assure I would have done it.
Unfortunately I cannot...
And I envy you, people who can do it.
Because I assume that everyone saying 2 DACs (if well engineered and designed and not broken) cannot have a sound signature have performed listening tests under the conditions they will only consider as valid to prove otherwise.

But to go back to the topic of this thread, may I remind that the question was "How do you deal with people thinking a DAC has a SOUND SIGNATURE".
Maybe we should tell what we consider a sound signature.
On the last 7/8 pages I was under the impression that "sound signature" was considered as equivalent of "bad design and egnineering".

Here is my question (and as for the question that started it all, it is serious).
Can we agree on this statement ? "The Topping E30 can be considered as a DAC that is well designed, well engineered".
If not, of course, there will be a problem.
But let's take it that we agree on this.

Now let's assume we get a Topping E30 that is not broken.
Let's put that into use.
If you read the manual, you'll find out that the Topping E30 included several filters (I think it has 6 of them).

So my questions are : if I change the filters,
- will I be able to measure a difference in the sound that is coming out of the DAC ?
- will that difference be audible ?

Regards.

Yes, if you have the way to measure you can measure the results of the filters. As others have said the fast linear filters are actually the proper ones.

Testing this for yourself isn't easy, but it isn't beyond doing. Start with the slowest filter vs the fastest. Have someone else switch them in a way you cannot know what they are doing. Decide ahead of time how things will be switched. Run 20 tests using fast as reference while randomly using fast or slow as a comparison. Choose same or different. If you get 15 of 20 there is fair chance you are hearing a difference. If 20 is tiring, you can do 10 now, and rest awhile and then do 10 more. Just don't reveal any results in between.

 

[PenguinMusic]

Yes, with some (slow) filters you will measure audible roll-of and may be plagued by aliasing artifacts.
Whether this is audible depends on the recordings, your age and transducers.
The fact that the DAC chip manufacturer includes several filters because customers and DAC device manufacturers 'demand' it and they do want to sell DAC chips is the reason why it is there and why DAC device manufacturers decide to use one filter, or make them select-able for the user is another matter.
The E30 is really only adhering to the sampling theorem when the owner selects the fast linear phase (or close to it) fast filters.

It is really easy to test audibility of the filters blind. All it takes is a helper and the listener not knowing. See how well you can detect audible differences then. You need enough statistical valid attempts.

Hi Solderdude,

Glad to see you in here (again).

To be honest, I think you were the one saying that performing listening test under proper conditions is not a trivial process

If I read your answer correctly, that means that there can be differences between filters.
And that those differences can be (more or less) audible.

So, based on your answer can I say following ?
1°) I make a listening set-up where I change the DAC only and I set it up so the test is performed properly. The DAC is of the same brand and model/make. I only change the filter. I may end up with an audible difference.
2°) Now let's assume that the manufacturer decides to offer 2 models of his DAC. Both have only one filter. But it is not the same. And the filter cannot be changed. I will have the same result as above and so may end up with 2 DACs that are well engineered and designed but that outputs a different sound.

If I can say so, my question is really simple.
Is changing a filter considered as turning a well designed and engineered DAC into a bad DAC design or engineering ?
Or is that just changing some "sound parameters" to please the customer who'll listen to it ?

If the latter applies, is it not what can be considered as a "sound signature"... even in a properly designed DAC ?
Something that has been WILLINGLY implemented by the designer to adapt to the listener's tastes ? Or is it a design flaw ?

Regards.

 

[KeithPhantom]

But if you say you did perform those tests, and if you claim you did them under acceptable circumstances, I'll take your word for it.

Always take data, it is easy to say that you did something that you didn't.

But I find this quite funny.
After all, the DAC sounded the same...
So was the "flowery" description less accurate than the (maybe) more objective one ?

Yes, it is less accurate.

 

[PenguinMusic]

Yes, it is less accurate.

Hi,

Is it ?

Can it be turned that way : "Our DAC is (maybe) more objective thinggies" (CAUSE) and thus you will get "flowery description" (CONSEQUENCE) ?
So we can reconcile both descriptions ?

Just teasing you of course

 

[Mnyb]

Nowadays all eyes are on the transducers , microphones or speakers can hardly be described as neutral .
Have anyone reading this tread seen the FR response of a speaker ? even the good speakers polar plots looks like a broccoli to me ?

Speakers have thousands of times more problems than electronics.

And then we have the sad state of the recordings themselves , that's the most pressing problem that makes me questions this hobby.
Even so called good recordings vary to much in basic parameters . And then we have the normal recordings of fairly popular music

Listening to audiophile labels gets boring very fast. cart before the horse recordings. I'm stunned that they can get artist to do it , they are obviously not the best artist they would pass as Friday night troubadour's at my local joint , slightly better than bands playing at an after ski ? Are they broke have a drug habit ?
(There are notable exceptions )

 

[Julf]

Is changing a filter considered as turning a well designed and engineered DAC into a bad DAC design or engineering ?
Or is that just changing some "sound parameters" to please the customer who'll listen to it ?

If the latter applies, is it not what can be considered as a "sound signature"... even in a properly designed DAC ?
Something that has been WILLINGLY implemented by the designer to adapt to the listener's tastes ? Or is it a design flaw ?

We are back to the "ketchup on everything" issue. Yes, some people design in coloration and distortion on purpose, others because they don't know better.

As I wrote, if a "pleasing" sound is what you want, use DSP or recreational drugs. The original idea of "Hi-Fi" (that stood for "High Fidelity") was just that - fidelity. Accuracy. Transparency. So lack of distortion, coloration and noise.

 

[digicidal]

In a world in which millions of clearly unhealthy, dangerous, destructive, exploitative products, substances, and habits are enjoyed by many (myself included) this is tilting at windmills under the best circumstances. You either accept the science, prove it wrong with equally rigorous testing/evidence, or grab a happy delusion. As long as you keep that delusion personal and private... it's all good (just don't engage in medical treatment, build houses or bridges, launch rockets, etc).

Though I didn't doubt it for a moment, the last 100+ pages of this thread should stand as a monument to the fact that there is no commonly acceptable threshold of evidence for many people. Their doubts will persist in the face of overwhelming evidence - guaranteed if nothing else by the dominance of the human ego. Why bother trying to change them at all? Even if they believe in the superior sound of alien anal glands... as long as they're happy, I say go for it! By the same token, why do so many of them spend endless hours trying to convince the other side that "feels" or "gut sensations" are superior to science? Of course, as a libertarian (small 'L') - I'm a crazy nutball with destructive ideologies, so I'm easily discounted.

That being said... I'm not going around preaching to people that drug abuse, excessive speeding, and junk food consumption are the best path to happiness (they just worked for me). I'm also not contesting the data that proves they are common predictors of negative outcomes. We've survived through bloodletting, trepanning, etc. and I'm sure we'll survive audiophile DACs as well... or at least most of us will. Our ancestors did in the other cases, or we wouldn't be able to have this discussion (those who didn't can't argue against me either). LOL! Sometimes we humans just need to give natural selection a helping hand... and take selfies by canyons. Audiophilia can be seen as a form of economic natural selection IMO... so I'm all for it - as long as it's optional and I don't personally have to support it.

Why we feel the need to convince anyone other than ourselves of subjective preferences is a better question IMO. If it takes more money to convince you of a product's performance... then hopefully you've got enough to blow on it. Just don't represent that as objectively better and enjoy your delusions. I've heard some people don't understand the singular perfection of metal (the genre not the elements) - I'm not going to bother trying to fix them... I'll just be content in my own enjoyment.

Edit: And I'm certainly not going to create accounts on forums for opera, crossover-country, or RnB enthusiasts and try to convince them of the errors in their ways. With all of the subjective audio publications, reviewers, etc... why does it seem ASR and the two/three other objective forums gets so many of these "discussions"?!?

 

[LTig]

You asked,

The answer to what you seek--or at least what you posted as an answer--is done by the medical folks. This includes audiologists, psychologists and other "ologists" in the medical field. Very interesting even with people understanding reality, the "western" countries have this odd believe that reality depends more on a vote than what is true reality. Other cultures that are not democratic tend not to understand "western logic" because...reality does not depend on what the law of averages provides.

How to sum up humanity? Well, we are emotional, biased creatures that think we are logical. Why does human bias exist and why it is coded inside all of us? Survival! Makes sense, think back when humans were on the snack food side of the food chain and we could throw rocks or sharpened sticks to defend ourselves against high speed four legged animals with teeth. Say a group of humans were hanging out near the mouth of the cave and they heard a noise in a tree--say 5 of the 6 ran back to the cave while the lone human was curious and went to see what that noise was. How long would the curious human last before he became lunch? Curiosity is what drives humanity forward but in the early days, it caused you to be brunch. Kids are curious by nature, just tell them there are creatures out in the woods that eat them (pick your creature!) If they believed in mystical, magical creatures then they would self-regulate even when you were distracted. This was all done to survive and you still are wired that way. You believe what you see, believe in your senses to stay alive.

To do the experiment correctly, it takes things far greater than double-blind tests yada, yada, yada. Our friendly medical researches wanted to know if a person believed something was "better" would they have a greater sense of happiness? Fire up the brain scanner and time to find out. What they did was have a chef make some form of food but they split it up between two table settings. One table had silk table cloth, fine china, fancy silverware etc. and the subjects were told it was made by a French chef with the finest in ingredients. When they ate the food they were scanned and their pleasure centers really lit up. Try it again but this time on paper plates, basic silverware, no tablecloth and the cook was a teenager using whatever ingredients he found. They ate the food and the brain scans prooved that they did not enjoy it as much as the "fancy" version. It was idenitical food.

Basically, if you BELIEVE it will taste, sound, feel better--it will! Pretty cool! This is why people will think water, wine or whatever tastes better by what they are told, what it costs and other factors even if it is identical. The reason you like Brand X or whatever when you see it VS Brand Y in a sighted test is because you have more pleasure with Brand X. It has nothing to do if X is better than Y, heck... X can be worse than Y but if you personally like X...you will enjoy X better. Congrats, you are a human! If Brand X appeals to your sense of style and Brand Y looks like trash--you will think and believe it will sound better--even if it don't. You will physically enjoy Brand X more and, if you don't mind paying for brain scans SSSS you can prove you get more enjoyment--you can PROVE it!

However, what you just have proven is akin to declaring the world's sexiest women/man/housepet or whatever. You are basically saying your sense of taste is reality--it is not. If you actually care about how frail the human senses are or how crazy our biases are--look up drug testing. They did such things like give people sugar pills and claim it did something---but told them one sugar pill cost 25 cents each while the other sugar pill cost $20.00 each--the third group got nothing. Guess what? The 20 dollar sugar pill created the most improved patient well being, the 25 cent sugar pill came in second and the people that recieved nothing did the poorest. In reality, all three groups received nothing at all but thanks to human biases, they had all sorts of positive results. This also applies to the color of the pills and how much the pill pusher engaged with the patient.

Enough science for you? Yeah, if you go on an audio forum or read magazines expecting medical advice--you are doing it wrong. Read up on human biases, psychology, medical testing and so on to get that answer. I did ONE blind test on amps, CD players and speakers years ago. Blew a weekend to get it right and learned that either my hearing sucked or I could not tell the difference between 0.03 and 0.05% distortion. Yep, could not tell three amps apart or three CD players apart--but I was able to tell the difference between speakers. Woohooo, ego restored! Ever since then, I get actual test results on equipment and go for the amp numbers of that blind test or better. Oddly enough, the medical folks (and my hearing tests) prove that age is not your friend for hearing accuracy so if I could not tell the difference a few decades ago, I won't be able to tell now. If I do somehow end up in an underground bunker that is so quiet I can hear the blood rushing through my ears, then I'll worry about Benchmark level amplifiers--but only then.

In summation, if you like something better and knowingly listen to it--you WILL enjoy it more! This is why double-blind testing chaps audiophile egos so much--you don't get that brain boost from sighting your favorite gadget. This is why the exact same beer tastes better on a nude beach in Greece than it does in my garage in the winter--the joys of being a human. Heck, I'll gladly drink warm generic beer swill on a nude beach in Greece than any beer in my garage--I embrace my bias!

Now that you know, time to set the ego aside and admit you like what you like. I'm sure my tastes in potential mates are drastically different from what get you interested and I don't demand my tastes are better than yours. In audio gear, some people like cables the size of their leg, amps the size of window AC units, a rack of stuff from floor to ceiling and like watching plastic discs rotate. It makes them feel good as that is what they like. This does not mean in any way, shape or form that it is true!

This is why you have testing. The limits of human hearing are known, very well documented and tested for the last century by medical doctors. Now that they can repair hearing in deaf people, you might give them a little credit for understanding human hearing. Take those limits and apply them to actual test specifications of equipment and once the machines exceed the flesh bag human's ability to perceive it--you are good.

So my advice to peole is simply this, once you determine what specifications you need then get that but make sure it has the reliability, features and aesthetics you desire. Sure, it sounds like I'm a mouth breathing inbred fool to mention looks--but it matters in the human experience. I did not say it made it sound "better" I am saying spend the money to make things have a look that you don't mind taking up space in your life for the next 10 to 20 years. I built my own speakers in the garage, they are 3-way vertical line arrays with a total of 24 woofers, 42 midranges and 96 tweeters sitting on subs. My wife refuses to let those things in the house (on subs they are almost 8 feet tall) they are finished to handle heat/cold/beer, flying tools, sawdust and everything that happens in an active garage. They are not furniture grade but can handle any nastiness to stay clean. Why build such a monster? I wanted to play with line arrays and they look cool in the garage. Sure, they have very narrow vertical dispersion to prevent cement floor/ceiling bounce, they are very efficient, have a huge sound and have very even SPL from one foot to 12 feet back---AND they look cool! They are not the best for measurements and are not the best sounding speakers I've ever heard--because they can't in a garage. Spent a bunch of money to get them to work properly (took three tries and 17 months) but are a "fun" speaker--after two beers they sound great!

So there ya go--don't blame "performance" or perceived sound quality improvements as blame to waste staggering amounts of money on what amounts to audio jewelry--that is common. Denial is a horrible human trait--get out of that trap and learn the limits of human hearing, get accurate test results of gear, LEARN what specifications matter to you--and what don't. Only then should you be concerned with the other 20 things that matter be it reliability, serviceability, size, weight, efficiency, upgradability, scalability, cost and looks--you have to look at the thing so looks matter but know that going in.

I do enjoy a bunch of the audiophile gear though--time is limited in the human life so when I see such nonsense, I walk away and avoid those people. I don't have time to explain how digital signal work, why green magic marker on CDs does not work, why records are not better than digital and all the religious audio dogma--read a book! Once you learn how these things work, have a basic understanding of electricity, acoustics and the properties of speakers then it becomes much easier. Don't get in the trap of "specmanship" in that my audio gadget is better because it tests with better numbers. The big thing to learn is "does it matter". Any fool can just jump on better numbers as better just as any idiot with ears can claim to be a golden eared audiophile. The best thing you can do is learn "does it matter" and what matters in your room, your listening distance, your SPL demands and your particualar needs to make up for hearing damage you have. That part demands that YOU know what you want, need or desire--that is on you and why I don't "recommend" things. When asked by actual friends or family members--I reply with at least 3 choices. I NEVER tell them what to purchase specifically, they always have at least 3 choices and if I can.... 5 choices. This way I don't get blamed for any of their biases, aesthetic issues, WAF concerns or if chix dig it. OK, if they ask about speaker cable I throw them a spool of 12 guage--or 14 guage if they like.

Hope that helps--such is the trials and tribulations of being a fleshy human. Good luck!

What a great posting. @amirm: This is worth a sticker.

 

[solderdude]

If I read your answer correctly, that means that there can be differences between filters.
And that those differences can be (more or less) audible.

Yes, depends on age and other conditions and whether or not a sharp or 'slow' filter is used. I cannot distinguish but a young person could.
Mind you this will only be valid playing 44.1 and perhaps 48kHz files. Above 88kHz sample rates the filter difference (above 10kHz) isn't there anymore.

So, based on your answer can I say following ?
1°) I make a listening set-up where I change the DAC only and I set it up so the test is performed properly. The DAC is of the same brand and model/make. I only change the filter. I may end up with an audible difference.

No need to change the DAC nor special measures. Just have someone change the filters (for instance 1 slow and 1 fast) or pretend to change filters in random order and log it. Listener logs as well guessing (or hearing) which one it is.
Listener has full control over the player and volume.

2°) Now let's assume that the manufacturer decides to offer 2 models of his DAC. Both have only one filter. But it is not the same. And the filter cannot be changed. I will have the same result as above and so may end up with 2 DACs that are well engineered and designed but that outputs a different sound.

Haven't seen this in practice. The manufacturers that want to stand out, peddle snake oil, use tubes with copious amounts of added harmonics, have deliberate roll-off or other effects do so because it sells. Flat doesn't sell as well in the upper price range as 'tuned with housesound' bla bla.
These DACs all may be well engineered in the sense that high quality components are used. That is part of well engineered/designed.

IMO the 'well designed/engineered' DAC bit should be well designed/engineered DAC adhering to the sampling theorem.

If I can say so, my question is really simple.
Is changing a filter considered as turning a well designed and engineered DAC into a bad DAC design or engineering ?
Or is that just changing some "sound parameters" to please the customer who'll listen to it ?

just changing some "sound parameters" to please the customer who'll listen to, nothing more nothing less. Some filters adhere to the sampling theorem, others less so because people want it and some some designers want to 'create a house sound' or pretend to do so to get more sales.

If the latter applies, is it not what can be considered as a "sound signature"... even in a properly designed DAC ?
Something that has been WILLINGLY implemented by the designer to adapt to the listener's tastes ? Or is it a design flaw ?

In some cases it is intentional but in other cases it may be design flaws (or 'f'ed up analog outpt stages).
It could be that one's mindset or a slightly higher output level is responsible for it to be perceived different.
In bind tests (that are not level matched or have give-aways present) the level difference can still be the determining factor.
A small level difference is not perceived as louder but usually preferred. That's why level matching by ear is flawed.


In the end some DACs do sound different and is measurable/demonstrable others may be perceieved as different sounding leading to a personal preference based on anything but a clear technical explanation.
In these cases a well conducted blind test can show if the differences are based on technical differences or are of other origin.
When all is said and done and an owner gets better 'sound' or more 'pleasure' using whatever DAC its all good.
It's the 'this DAC IS better' because it sounds better to the one making the claim is what rallies up the folks here and elsewhere.
Just use what one wants to use and enjoy the music.

The more conflicting things one reads about a subject the sooner the upgrade bug starts nagging.

 

[PenguinMusic]

In a world in which millions of clearly unhealthy, dangerous, destructive, exploitative products, substances, and habits are enjoyed by many (myself included) this is tilting at windmills under the best circumstances. You either accept the science, prove it wrong with equally rigorous testing/evidence, or grab a happy delusion. As long as you keep that delusion personal and private... it's all good (just don't engage in medical treatment, build houses or bridges, launch rockets, etc).

Though I didn't doubt it for a moment, the last 100+ pages of this thread should stand as a monument to the fact that there is no commonly acceptable threshold of evidence for many people. Their doubts will persist in the face of overwhelming evidence - guaranteed if nothing else by the dominance of the human ego. Why bother trying to change them at all? Even if they believe in the superior sound of alien anal glands... as long as they're happy, I say go for it! By the same token, why do so many of them spend endless hours trying to convince the other side that "feels" or "gut sensations" are superior to science? Of course, as a libertarian (small 'L') - I'm a crazy nutball with destructive ideologies, so I'm easily discounted.

That being said... I'm not going around preaching to people that drug abuse, excessive speeding, and junk food consumption are the best path to happiness. I'm also not contesting the data that proves they are common predictors of negative outcomes. We've survived through bloodletting, trepanning, etc. and I'm sure we'll survive audiophile DACs as well... or at least most of us will. Our ancestors did in the other cases, or we wouldn't be able to have this discussion (those who didn't can't argue against me either). LOL! Sometimes we humans just need to give natural selection a helping hand... and take selfies by canyons. Audiophilia can be seen as a form of economic natural selection IMO... so I'm all for it - as long as it's optional and I don't personally have to support it.

Why we feel the need to convince anyone other than ourselves of subjective preferences is a better question IMO. If it takes more money to convince you of a product's performance... then hopefully you've got enough to blow on it. Just don't represent that as objectively better and enjoy your delusions. I've heard some people don't understand the singular perfection of metal (the genre not the elements) - I'm not going to bother trying to fix them... I'll just be content in my own enjoyment.

Hi,

Thanks for this reply.

As far as I am concerned, I do not think I ever wrote that the more expensive DAC sounds better.

Right now, the thing I use is a device that can be used as a Toslink/SPDIF DAC, as a Bluettoth emitter for the sound it gets from the Toslink or SPDIF and as a Bluetooth receiver so it can playback files received via Bluetooth over it's internal DAC. For that device, I paid 80€ shipped.

It is hooked up to either a Nosound Little Bear 4 headphone amp. Paid 75€ for it. I also use an Oppo HA-2 SE headphone amp. Paid 180€ for it used.

I do not think that those amounts (155€ for a DAC + headphone amp, 260€ if you consider the HA-2 SE) can be considered as "excessive"...
I also never claimed that those sounded objectively better. Quite the opposite : I think I always stated that I liked the sound whatever the measures and that I was making a totally subjective AND personal statement. And I have ALMOST ALWAYS been flamed despite those precautions.

Still, from what I can understand from Julf's answer in post 2 132, under these conditions (which were the ones I stated in the post he replied to) :
- use of EXACT SAME hardware ;
- use of EXACT SAME design ;
- ONLY ONE change : the filter.

Conclusion :
- may induce a sound difference ;
- but sound difference is because applying the filter turned the super DAC into a "bad" one (maybe a little exagerated).

Seems to be confirmed by Solderdude.

If it is commonly agreed, I won't discuss any further even though I am not totally convinced... But a I am here to try to learn

So to sum it all up, ONE SOUND but MULTIPLE HEARINGS

 

[solderdude]

So to sum it all up, ONE SOUND but MULTIPLE HEARINGS

Not only hearing differs but also preference and above all mindset. It may be of technical origin but doesn't have to.
It's not like taste, touch, and eyesight but in all cases the brain of an individual is involved.
With music recordings also the brains of many people right up to the final mastering.

 

[digicidal]

@PenguinMusic - well, a bit wrong but not entirely. My point was more to the thread title generally than the recent discussion specifically, however regardless of the price - the point is that you enjoy it, but that it's personal - not universal.

I think you perceive disagreement with your conclusion (and possibly the means to that end) as "being flamed" - but I don't see that as the case. It's a common misconception that an objectively more accurate device is universally subjectively better. It certainly can be of course... but it's not a given in every case. To distill the list a few pages back, I'd go with these two only (as mentioned by others as well):

1) You wish to hear exactly what is recorded (for good or bad) or as close to it as is possible.
2) You wish to hear a consistently adjusted version of what is recorded - based on subjective preference.

There really isn't any other camp... that's where the "ketchup analogy" comes in. The problem many of us on ASR have with products with a deliberate signature is that it is then forcing that ketchup on to everything played through the device... vs. starting with a "bland" but accurate sound which you can then adjust with tone controls, filters, DSP, etc. as you like... but which allows those adjustments to be variable and based on the recordings, mood, etc.

There's nothing inherently wrong with putting ketchup on everything... it's just far more economical and rational to simply put the bottle on the table and allow everyone to use or not as they see fit. The problem is when those with the "ketchup on everything" mentality try to justify that preference as being objectively superior and proof of superior hearing or whatever... rather than a simple preference or sales tactic.

 

[Julf]

There's nothing inherently wrong with putting ketchup on everything... it's just far more economical and rational to simply put the bottle on the table and allow everyone to use or not as they see fit.

That is why gear used to have tone controls, before the "real audiophiles" declared them evil. These days we have DSP, with extreme examples such as the Vintage tube saturation plugin and Ampex tape plugin.

 

[digicidal]

That is why gear used to have tone controls, before the "real audiophiles" declared them evil. These days we have DSP, with extreme examples such as the Vintage tube saturation plugin and Ampex tape plugin.

Which I think is one of the reasons so many of us want transparency in the audio chain (as much as possible). I do think it's ironic how many audiophiles railed against tone controls... but then lauded tube amps, vinyl, etc. It's so strange to me how providing variable control of EQ, etc. is viewed as more dangerous or destructive than inherent ones. No matter what the topic, free will has been often demonized throughout human history - despite it getting us most of what we currently fight each other over.

I definitely get that some prefer to have all the work done for them... but we have soundbars for those people already. LOL!

 

[Frank Dernie]

But at least my conclusions are never based on a single A-B testing, (blind or otherwise), but on hours of listening. Typically I am very fussy to sound the same perceptual level but, granted, I don't measure the dB level. Furthermore my hours of listening are over several days at deliberately different listening levels.

I used to do this.
About 10 years ago I settled on some kit I liked and haven't changed anything since.
I still hear differences from day to day which I used to put down to long term listening evaluation back in the day.
I now suspect it is just me and perhaps my mood.
I wish I had realised this earlier because I could have saved a lot of money.