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

[Sir Sanders Zingmore]

Let me spell it out - level matching by ear doesn't work. The ear is not a very good level detector. Single blind testing is affected by the clever hans phenomenon, which is why double blind is the standard procedure.

so despite potentially poor level matching and the presence of clever Hans I still couldn’t tell the dacs apart. My test was flawed in the direction of a false positive, and I got a negative.
Again, what’s your point?

 

[Julf]

so despite potentially poor level matching and the presence of clever Hans I still couldn’t tell the dacs apart. My test was flawed in the direction of a false positive, and I got a negative.
Again, what’s your point?

A generic one about tests. Yes, in your case you got a negative, and the test was good enough for that. Just reiterating the point that had you gotten a positive result, it would not (yet) tell us much.

 

[Sir Sanders Zingmore]

A generic one about tests. Yes, in your case you got a negative, and the test was good enough for that. Just reiterating the point that had you gotten a positive result, it would not (yet) tell us much.

Agreed, although in poorly constructed single blind tests where I have been able to tell components apart, it's always been significantly harder than when I compared the same components "sighted".
That to me at least, is a very telling point about how strong sighted-bias can be

 

[jsrtheta]

...in your case you got a negative, and the test was good enough for that....

Or maybe it was a false negative.

 

[Sir Sanders Zingmore]

Or maybe it was a false negative.

How is that possible ?

 

[jsrtheta]

How is that possible ?

It would happen if there actually was an audible difference but, due to poor testing protocol, you couldn't detect it. False negatives happen just like false positives happen.

 

[Sir Sanders Zingmore]

It would happen if there actually was an audible difference but, due to poor testing protocol, you couldn't detect it. False negatives happen just like false positives happen.

I’m struggling to see how this could happen in this instance. Sighted, the differences seemed obvious. Sighted and level matched (by ear), it was a bit harder but they still seemed obvious. Unsighted, I couldn’t tell them apart.
The only thing that changed was my friend didn’t tell me which dac was playing.

 

[jsrtheta]

I’m struggling to see how this could happen in this instance. Sighted, the differences seemed obvious. Sighted and level matched (by ear), it was a bit harder but they still seemed obvious. Unsighted, I couldn’t tell them apart.
The only thing that changed was my friend didn’t tell me which dac was playing.

All it takes for a false negative in this case is 1) there in fact was an audible difference that you failed to perceive (and under proper conditions would have perceived), but, 2) for some reason (time spent listening, distraction, any number of things, really) you didn't think you heard a difference.

I don't think this is what happened. I think your original conclusion is most likely true. My only point (which wasn't a point, more a humorous quibble) is that just as tests can yield false positives, they can also yield false negatives. In tests with more at stake and larger sample sizes, such as pharmaceutical testing, either one can prove very important. But it wasn't meant to be a serious comment.

 

[TLEDDY]

As usual for them, a badly designed experiment. They missed the most obvious controls, but they weren't looking for truth, just something to help increase ad sales.

Please help me out here. I am not, as stated elsewhere, educated in technical methodology.

What did the design do badly in the experiment and how it should have been altered.

I am a cynic, as such, I believe that anything a publication does has an ulterior motive to increase sales.

 

[solderdude]

What bob did there was simply to 'f-up' the characteristics of his own amp down to the same (poor) level of performance of the 'reference' amplifier.

This takes careful nulling and analysis of the difference signal under the same load. The most difficult part would have been to separate phase from amplitude differences (for which he would have used the scopes). When one changes the bandwidth we also change phase so would have been an iterative process. Then he would have needed to increase distortion to the same type and amplitude of the 'reference' amp.
Because he designed the amp he will have likely have known what to change to get a similar distortion level.

With the proper digital manipulation I suspect one can make the DAC2 sound very similar to some of the other expensive 'high end' DACs by adding similar distortion profiles (which could be level dependent).

However, I don't see the point in that (other than having some fun). If one prefers a certain type of distortion (that's basically what it boils down to) then just use the desired 'effect box'. Those that don't want effect boxes should use low distortion gear.

One should realize that some amplifiers that measure well on test benches could turn into effect boxes with some difficult speaker loads.

The idea that distortion free reproduction leads to 'the same product the producer aimed for' is a flawed one. The reason for that is simple.
In the studio certain types of speakers were used in a certain position with a certain room conditioning. Combined with the used amplifier and taste of the responsible engineer(s) for the final product that what comes out of speakers in a different room (or headphones with vastly varying freq. response) will most certainly NOT be the same as the guy in the studio heard it, not even when levels are matched. Simply because of different effect boxes being used.

One thing one can be sure of with low distortion gear is that no further changes are made (except for the transducers)

 

[SIY]

Please help me out here. I am not, as stated elsewhere, educated in technical methodology.

What did the design do badly in the experiment and how it should have been altered.

I am a cynic, as such, I believe that anything a publication does has an ulterior motive to increase sales.

First basic control experiment: could the two amplifiers actually be distinguished level-matched and double-blind before any alterations? It was astounding that this wasn't checked first.

Second basic control experiment: if they can be distinguished, are there frequency response differences? If those are equalized out, can the amps then be distinguished? That's not as "sexy" as "transfer function alterations," but eliminates differences nearly every time when both amps are being driven within their limits.

 

[gfx_1]

I suspect many of us have willingly embraced psychoacoustic effects to fool ourselves into believing we are enjoying something better.

I still do it with FLAC, I re-ripped all my CDs from 320k MP3 to FLAC because lossless must be better, right? T

320k MP3 is pretty good, with audacity you can load both the FLAC and the MP3 and easily switch between them, I couldn't hear a difference but the waveforms weren't exactly the same.
With lower bitrate MP3 one will lose some fidelity. But I ripped most of my CD's to FLAC because diskspace is not expensive and lossless so no worries.

After reading this topic I still think I hear a tiny difference between the DAC in a Marantz CD-player and the same player through the DAC in the amplifier. There are some differences in the analog circuit.

 

[magicscreen]

I'd like to buy a Loxjie D10 dac. It has good measurements.
Is there any audible difference between the Loxjie D10 and the very expensive Topping D90/Sabaj D5/SMSL M500?

 

[jsrtheta]

I'd like to buy a Loxjie D10 dac. It has good measurements.
Is there any audible difference between the Loxjie D10 and the very expensive Topping D90/Sabaj D5/SMSL M500?

Why would there be?

 

[Wes]

I’m struggling to see how this could happen in this instance. Sighted, the differences seemed obvious. Sighted and level matched (by ear), it was a bit harder but they still seemed obvious. Unsighted, I couldn’t tell them apart.
The only thing that changed was my friend didn’t tell me which dac was playing.

I thought someone already pointed out the problem in a post above.

Next time, just use a DVM on the speaker terminals to match a test tone, or use a SPL meter.

The difference between false pos. and false neg. (or Type vs. Type II errors) depends on the consequence of the mistake.

Say you're in snowy mtns. and travel near a cornice - one mistake might slow you down; the other might kill you. Same with drug testing.

 

[Darkweb]

so despite potentially poor level matching and the presence of clever Hans I still couldn’t tell the dacs apart. My test was flawed in the direction of a false positive, and I got a negative.
Again, what’s your point?

This is just an example of how worthless the blind tests are. They’re black holes where actual differences go undiscovered, but are then trumpeted as the holy grail in an effort to make divorced dads feel like they’re Crown amp sounds identical to a Mark Levinson.

 

[jsrtheta]

This is just an example of how worthless the blind tests are. They’re black holes where actual differences go undiscovered, but are then trumpeted as the holy grail in an effort to make divorced dads feel like they’re Crown amp sounds identical to a Mark Levinson.

Why would the gold standard of scientific testing not apply to audio? Why wouldn't a Crown amplifier sound the same as a Levinson, if properly designed and built?

 

[NTomokawa]

This is just an example of how worthless the blind tests are. They’re black holes where actual differences go undiscovered, but are then trumpeted as the holy grail in an effort to make divorced dads feel like they’re Crown amp sounds identical to a Mark Levinson.

 

[JJB70]

This is just an example of how worthless the blind tests are. They’re black holes where actual differences go undiscovered, but are then trumpeted as the holy grail in an effort to make divorced dads feel like they’re Crown amp sounds identical to a Mark Levinson.

If the differences between a Crown amp and a Mark Levinson amp go undiscovered in a blind test then they obviously aren't very significant. So unless you want audio jewellery just buy the Crown and pocket the few thousand dollars you save.

 

[NTomokawa]

If the differences between a Crown amp and a Mark Levinson amp go undiscovered in a blind test then they obviously aren't very significant.

I am reminded of this here test, where participants could not tell the "cheap" system from the "high-end" "boutique" system.

Now I'm waiting for the inevitable response that "the speakers or speaker cables were not revealing enough".