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

[VintageFlanker]

OK. Real Talk. Anyone who claims they can't hear the difference between something sublime like a 24 bit schiit dac or an audio g-d nfb 28 (omg audiogasm) and something completely ****** like an apple usb-c dongle or an rme-adi 2 (omg sounds so flat) is obvi not burning in their shit for long enough. Obviously if you just bought something it isn't going to be at its best. I just bought a $10,000 kimber cable, and after 2 years it finally is sounding its best. It took even longer to burn in my 24 bit schiit dac, but now it sounds just amazing. I'm sorry to anyone who doesn't have good enough ears to tell the difference between this stuff, but really i feel bad for you. at least take the time to burn yo shit in!!!

I was thinking about a decent joke the first seconds... But at the end, it doesn't seem like it.

Many thanks. You made my day.

Your brain must be some kind of exceptional to detect improvements in cables burn-in... during 2 years. Maybe you should be hired at Audio Precision to become the first human measuring instrument?

 

[Blumlein 88]

That's not my point. My point is that simply estimating a physically measurable difference (and precisely measurable at that) without tools - will result in differences between individuals. Some are very good at this estimation, others not - but none will be anywhere close to the precision of a basic tape measure.

When you add in there not being any physical body present creating the sound - but merely an imaginary one constructed entirely within the brain... how likely is that to be more precise or anywhere close for that matter? I'm not "assuming they are illusory" - by definition they are. No one is playing a drum kit of any size in my room... I'm imagining it based on a recording of a drum kit that has passed through many hands and devices on the way. The fact that I can localize what sounds like a drum kit (or what I know to be one) doesn't make it less illusory.

http://www.aes.org/aeshc/docs/bell.labs/auditoryperspective.pdf

Bell Labs from 1930's.

Look at figure 1 on page 12 of this old article. Comparing accuracy of imaging using reproduction of 2 channels over 2 or 3 channel playback and 3 channel playback over 2 and 3 channels. 3x3 was best.

 

[audimus]

Aren't drums usually panned broadly and various types of mics are used for each 'component' as well as an overhead being mixed in.
Would imaging of drums not be determined in the mixing console ?

Yes to the last part. In all these discussions we are talking about what the audio system creates in front of the listener. A perfect system would create a stage exactly as intended in the mixing process. It is unrelated to what the recording positions are. If you look at the whole audio chain, there may be large deviations in perceived sound stage from that intended primarily from speakers and to a decreasing extent up the chain depending on what the devices are doing.

 

[solderdude]

Agreed. But they are all an illusion in the purest sense correct? I'm just confused at the apparent disagreement.

There wasn't any disagreement. It only appears that was because he later added: How does one re-create another's unreferenced illusion?

I add and change things in my posts afterwards often as well and can lead to confusing replies.

 

[solderdude]

You are missing the context of the thread I was responding to. This is a problem with this linear forum format.

Especially when the reply is more topic related after an OT.

 

[solderdude]

Yes to the last part. In all these discussions we are talking about what the audio system creates in front of the listener. A perfect system would create a stage exactly as intended in the mixing process. It is unrelated to what the recording positions are. If you look at the whole audio chain, there may be large deviations in perceived sound stage from that intended primarily from speakers and to a decreasing extent up the chain depending on what the devices are doing.

Agreed, but the thread is about DAC's (and as an extension amps) and why they appear to sound different when there seems to be no basis for that.

We all know speakers (and positioning) and rooms as well as headphones modifying the final product (distributed recording) and that this is also highly human dependent as well. I don't think anyone will dispute this.

 

[digicidal]

http://www.aes.org/aeshc/docs/bell.labs/auditoryperspective.pdf

Bell Labs from 1930's.

Look at figure 1 on page 12 of this old article. Comparing accuracy of imaging using reproduction of 2 channels over 2 or 3 channel playback and 3 channel playback over 2 and 3 channels. 3x3 was best.

Too bad those older papers have such poor quality printing... I wish that chart was larger/cleaner. Regardless, I've found it very interesting and have saved for a much more detailed reading later. Thanks!

 

[Blumlein 88]

Too bad those older papers have such poor quality printing... I wish that chart was larger/cleaner. Regardless, I've found it very interesting and have saved for a much more detailed reading later. Thanks!

Well pretty sure that was a copy, maybe even a copy of a copy. The print in those was actually pretty good in the originals.

 

[digicidal]

Yeah, since it's many papers together as one, I'm sure it's at least a 2nd generation if not more.

 

[audimus]

Agreed, but the thread is about DAC's (and as an extension amps) and why they appear to sound different when there seems to be no basis for that.

We all know speakers (and positioning) and rooms as well as headphones modifying the final product (distributed recording) and that this is also highly human dependent as well. I don't think anyone will dispute this.

Sigh. This last sub-thread originated from Amir’s comment about audio devices in responses to my post on measurements that can correlate with golden ear terms like stage, etc. There was a discussion with others on what can happen with equipment downstream not just speakers and what kind of measurements can correlate with those.

The relationship to DACs (or any equipment) is that if we know which such measurements correlated with such audible effects and we show that DACs do not alter any of those metrics, then that would be positive proof that DACs or any equipment that do not alter those metrics cannot possibly be behind any audible differences real or not rather than keep saying these guys are deluded.

We seem to be talking past each other so I will stop here than continue this exchange with you.

 

[Wombat]

I don't care about all of this. When it sounds good and can enjoy the product (distributed recording) then I am happy. Live or studio.

Perfect holographic recordings don't exist and never will either but there are plenty of well made and enjoyable recordings around.

So soundstage /imaging is an artificial effect that preoccupies many listeners as an important reproduction requirement on their various systems/environments and in their heads regardless of unspecified performer placement, studio environment, recording methods and console manipulations.

General question:
Where is the science here, as this is taken so seriously from system related opinions(published reviews or individual's anecdotes), even by those who should be more discerning?

Even related to DACs by many.

 

[solderdude]

Where is the science here,

One would say in many cases (subjective reviews) it is out the door... they don't want any or very little of it.

The science itself would be in the recording and mastering bit (combined with art or the art of recording properly) and the science of proper rep[roduction, acoustics and perception I could say.

If all is done right one should have enjoyable sound or at least can shape it that way with seasoning of the sound depending on measurements and/or personal preference.

 

[BDWoody]

If we can't find dark matter, even though we say it exists, then it must be the same for all those darned audio plankton that stowed-away on Noah's Ark.

Aren't they in ML's barn?

 

[solderdude]

The relationship to DACs (or any equipment) is that if we know which such measurements correlated with such audible effects and we show that DACs do not alter any of those metrics, then that would be positive proof that DACs or any equipment that do not alter those metrics cannot possibly be behind any audible differences real or not rather than keep saying these guys are deluded.

Exactly my point. Descriptors of sound quality aspects are often nonsensical or are misused or interpreted differently.
The same can be said for measurements. These too can be nonsensical (when measured incorrectly) or are misused or misinterpreted.

When the brain and acoustics are involved one needs to do this with the correct controls just as measurements also need to be done correctly.

 

[Wombat]

Exactly my point. Descriptors of sound quality aspects are often non nonsensical or are misused or interpreted differently.
The same can be said for measurements. These too can be nonsensical (when measured incorrectly) or are misused or misinterpreted.

When the brain and acoustics are involved one needs to do this with the correct controls just as measurements also need to be done correctly.

Agree. Can't see the controls and science in listener perceived soundstage/imaging from recordings.

New thread required, I think.

 

[digicidal]

Agree. Can't see the controls and science in listener perceived soundstage/imaging from recordings.
New thread required, I think.

Agree. Psychoacoustics are intrinsically resistant to controls IMO - other than the fact that most humans are able to localize sound and recreate some sense of spatial relationships to it - there's precious little capability to qualify that phenomenon (and only a bit more to quantify it).

I would add that it's apparently inconsequential in the general sense, despite a huge emphasis on it in audiophile and hifi enthusiast circles. The numbers of people currently happily listening on small soundbars and single-point Bluetooth speakers supports this. As does the majority of live performances where amplification is used. Often the venue is blanketed with arrays of speakers in all directions and at levels which make localization extremely difficult if not impossible - in fact I'd guess many are summed at the sound board.

As far as DACs (and amps) are concerned, I'd say the presence/absence of noise and distortion products is at least 95% of the difference. Although I'm rarely impressed with the quality of sound, I can't remember the last time the biggest complaint I had in a store, restaurant, etc. about the ambient audio (usually summed signals pushed out of garbage speakers in the ceiling) was the lack of soundstage. It's always the horrible frequency response, the lack of clean amplification, and the song selections that upset me.

 

[GrimSurfer]

Your brain must be some kind of exceptional to detect improvements in cables burn-in... during 2 years. Maybe you should be hired at Audio Precision to become the first human measuring instrument?

LOL. The word "tool" did come to mind.

 

[GrimSurfer]

I can't remember the last time the biggest complaint I had in a store, restaurant, etc. about the ambient audio (usually summed signals pushed out of garbage speakers in the ceiling) was the lack of soundstage. It's always the horrible frequency response, the lack of clean amplification, and the song selections that upset me.

Business such as these are notoriously poor at managing sound. I've had a few discussions about this with Ethan Winer, whose services would be in great demand if just restaurants understood just how much bad sound detracts from the ambience they're trying to create.

In so many cases, an aesthetic is chosen that has the worst possible acoustic properties. Tile, glass, angled corners, etc. are horrible and not a necessity as, say, hard floor surfaces (for cleanliness and ease of maintenance). The intensity of direct and reflected sound is reminiscent of what life would be like inside a loudspeaker before the batting is installed.

I frequent one coffee shop that has a killer sound system. It's not played loud and the music is acceptable. But the positioning of the loudspeakers is atrocious. I'm hoping to learn of a break-in so that the system has a chance of finding a better home. The coffee is damned good though...

 

[Vapor9]

View attachment 35218

Another flawed test since people were probably not acquainted with the room, speakers, etc. Reliably hearing differences requires a certain education process about the various characteristics of the system, environment and source material.

 

[amirm]

Okay, so based on your experience, at what point on your measuring scale do the differences become effectively inaudible?
SINAD 85,90,95,100, etc?

What does "effectively" mean? And regardless, you have to look at the spectrum, not the single value at that kind of resolution.