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

[ahofer]

Yes, like I said, I'm sorry that some people really can't hear well. The funny part is that these two dacs would probably measure quite differently, but somehow they sound the same to everyone.

I cannot believe you rolled out that old Golden Ear cliche here. There are several of us on this forum willing to put up money that you can’t back that up in a blind test. Until you prove it, maybe a little less swagger is in order.

https://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/crowdsourcing-a-blind-test-prize-or-bet.9259/

 

[Kosta]

I think @solderdude got it when stated that dacs can be differentiated based on 'technical performance' (as in what ASR does). Having recently upgraded all my kit I honestly can not tell any difference between my old android usb dongle dac, old $20 TV dac and my new desktop dac when connected to the same amplifier.

 

[ashleydoormat]

I’d recommend starting with a basic freshman-level text on electromagnetism. Then move on to solid state physics. Personally, I’m a fan of the Feynman Lectures, but they may be some tough sledding. Worth it, though.

I've actually been watching some videos on the Great Courses Plus on electromagnetism. Some fascinating stuffs there! I'll look more into solid state physics and Feynman Lectures for sure! Can you try to explain to me in layman terms how different cables can't conduct signals differently?

 

[MrGoodbits]

Anyone who believes in audiophoolery will do anything they can to avoid such an experience. Some people just love to live under a veil of ignorance. Might work for people who already have a decent math/science education, but for most audiphools, forcing them to have a "DBT experience" isn't going to make a difference.

It might work for 1% of them. Not sure why it worked for me, but I'm glad it did, it saved me $$$$ and made me not worry about that stuff and just enjoy the music.

 

[LTig]

So you guys don't think the conductance and quality of the materials will make cables sound different?

Basically yes - exceptions see below.

Any concrete proof that cables with different materials conduct signals the same way?

This is not the same question. Cables are characterized by their

• resistance (depends on the material and its width), specified as Ohm per length
• capacitance, specified as F per length
• inductance, specified as H per length.
• impedance, specified in Ohm (not to be mistaken by the resistance). It is relevant only for high frequencies like in digital connections (75 Ohm for SPDIF, 110 Ohm for AES) and antenna/sat cables (75 Ohm).

Together with the output impedance of the source (lets say a DAC) and the input impedance of the drain (lets say the preamp) one can calculate (and measure) the resulting frequency response (FR) of the connection. In most cases the FR is flat and therefore the cable does not show any audible effects. Flat means within the audible range (20 Hz - 20 kHz +/- 0.05dB).

Typical situations where FR of a connection may not be flat:

• cable between turntable with moving magnet pickup and phono preamp: if the combined capacitance of cable and input is not the recommended load capacitance as specified by the maker of the pickup the FR will be not flat. Either there is a slight loss above 15 kHz (capacitance too low) or a peak above 10 kHz followed by a big loss (capacitance too high).
• cable between tube preamp and power amp: many tube preamps have a very high output impedance. Using a cable with high capacitance (either the wrong cable or just one that is too long for this preamp) leads to a loss in the highs.
  As long as the output impedance is low enough so that there is no loss of more than 0.1 dB in the audible FR there is nothing to worry about.
• loudspeaker cable: if the resistance of the cable is too high (wire too thin or cable too long) some power gets lost in the cable, and a speaker with a wildly varying impedance (almost all) will also show a change in its FR (2 way speakers usually display a kind if loudness). The fix is easy: use a cable with a thicker wire.

All of this can be predicted. Check the specs of the sources (output impedance) and the sinks (input impedance) and calculate the maximum allowed cable capacitance and resistance between each soucrce and sink. Divide those values by the length and you have the specs for each cable.

Then, if you go into a shop for pro equipment and buy matching cables you're on safe ground, and the cables will stand some abuse as well.

 

[LTig]

I've actually been watching some videos on the Great Courses Plus on electromagnetism. Some fascinating stuffs there! I'll look more into solid state physics and Feynman Lectures for sure! Can you try to explain to me in layman terms how different cables can't conduct signals differently?

I just tried to explain that different cables do conduct signals different, depending on their characteristics and the characteristics of the output and inputs they connect. The frequency response (FR) of the connection will vary, depending on the specs of the IOs, the specs of the cable and its length. In most cases though the FR is flat within the audible range and therefore there is no audible difference.

 

[mansr]

IMO, if you don't understand the equations, you don't understand electrodynamics. And there are few people who aren't physics, math or EE majors that have the mathematical background to understand any of that stuff. And most of the people who have the ability to learn that stuff, wouldn't have been able to do it without being forced to take the exams.

I took the exams quite voluntarily.

 

[SIY]

It’s important to keep in mind that audio signal have VERY long wavelengths and are very low frequency. So any normal audio cable or interconnect has absolutely negligible length in comparison. Any talk about things like characteristic impedance or nanosecond reflections should alert you that you’re either dealing with an ignoramus or a scammer.

 

[RayDunzl]

Re: Interconnect Cable

Ref: Benchmark DAC2 HGC Manual

Cable construction specifed: None, but they like Canare in other documents.

They do say "The table assumes a cable capacitance of 32 pF/foot."

The Belden cables I glanced at spec 31pF/foot.

 

[Willhelm_Scream]

I took the exams quite voluntarily.

Sure and people go to work every day for 12 hours "voluntarily" as well.

 

[lowiqaudiophilewgoldenear]

Everyone here needs to get off of this "All DACs and Amps sound the same" BS that has been going around. The people that say this are people that either A. Not actually tried a real blind test between sources, or B. lack the critical listening skills to discern differences. If you are do a blind test between DACs of two levels say a Topping D10 and a RME ADI-2, the D10 sounds so dead.

100% objectivism in audio is some next level idiocy and needs to stop. The correct way is you need to be in the middle and realism what measurements matter and what ones don't. I believe that at some point we can solve audio 100% objectively, but we lack the knowledge and equipment to do that at this time. I think we are pretty much there with regard to measuring headphones, but nowhere close with amps or dacs or cables, because whether you like an amp or a dac or a specific cable is so subjective.

There are too many variables in these studies. Grabbing a bunch of random people and having them do blind test on DACs is a terrible test. What is to say these people have an experience or knowledge on how to judge DACs? From blind testing I have done myself it is not that hard to pick out differences between DACs. We just don't fully understand yet how to properly measure DACs or what all the necessary measurements are for them.
Now headphones an FR measurements I find a much more logical measurement because they are very easily check just by listening to sine sweep. Although if we went to go with what measurement says, how can you tell me one headphone has say more detail than another? As critcs like Metal have said if you want to go 100% objective for DACs you also have to go 100% objective for headphones. Just pick whatever headphone has the highest score on RTings.

 

[BDWoody]

Everyone here needs to get off of this "All DACs and Amps sound the same" BS that has been going around. The people that say this are people that either A. Not actually tried a real blind test between sources, or B. lack the critical listening skills to discern differences. If you are do a blind test between DACs of two levels say a Topping D10 and a RME ADI-2, the D10 sounds so dead.

100% objectivism in audio is some next level idiocy and needs to stop. The correct way is you need to be in the middle and realism what measurements matter and what ones don't. I believe that at some point we can solve audio 100% objectively, but we lack the knowledge and equipment to do that at this time. I think we are pretty much there with regard to measuring headphones, but nowhere close with amps or dacs or cables, because whether you like an amp or a dac or a specific cable is so subjective.

There are too many variables in these studies. Grabbing a bunch of random people and having them do blind test on DACs is a terrible test. What is to say these people have an experience or knowledge on how to judge DACs? From blind testing I have done myself it is not that hard to pick out differences between DACs. We just don't fully understand yet how to properly measure DACs or what all the necessary measurements are for them.
Now headphones an FR measurements I find a much more logical measurement because they are very easily check just by listening to sine sweep. Although if we went to go with what measurement says, how can you tell me one headphone has say more detail than another? As critcs like Metal have said if you want to go 100% objective for DACs you also have to go 100% objective for headphones. Just pick whatever headphone has the highest score on RTings.

To quote and learn from @RayDunzl ...
Uh huh...

 

[scott wurcer]

It’s important to keep in mind that audio signal have VERY long wavelengths and are very low frequency. So any normal audio cable or interconnect has absolutely negligible length in comparison. Any talk about things like characteristic impedance or nanosecond reflections should alert you that you’re either dealing with an ignoramus or a scammer.

It does not matter how you pose the problem you have to get the same answer.

 

[lowiqaudiophilewgoldenear]

The only measurements made on this site are stuff that audio equipment makers are already listing specs on there spec charts, they arent anything speciallyh or any "new" audio science. Don't you people care about like how something acgtually sounds? I could see if new science were being created by it is all the same measurements, that onlyh have to do with stuff like distortion and conductance. If you have something like a tube amp of course it has distortion, isn't that the point of a tube amp? I never understood that. And here it is always the same guy taking measurements, whats to say that if a different person took measurements they might come up with something different. I understand that people here prefer stuff that is transparent, and distortions measurements might show that the most transparent stuff is scoring the best, but transparent doesn't equal good. Everyone likes something different, and until we come up with ways to measure the non-transparent aspects of sound, it is pretty much useless to measure stuff, because even amir admits that most of the measured differences between equipment are inaudible, so what about measuring the actual audible stuff you find in a piece of equipment or cables sound?

And just so you guys all know, I do have a degree in the political sciences (government) science degree, so I am very familiar with the empirical measurements of things and science, and that stuff never tells the whole picture. There will always be non-measurable aspects to the nature of things that resist measurments and numbers. maybe some day we will have the technology to explain say why something like a schiit modi multibit or audi-g-d nfb 28 just sounds so much better with better sound stage, imaging, treble response etc than other stuff, and we will look back at this site and laugh how we were in the dark ages then, and we will know why people like me and others can hear differences vs. other people (i know that for instance listening to music and sound is not innate. Respectfully, to people here if you can't tell that there are differences, subtle as they may be, then you simply haven't developed your listening skills to the point where you are able to look for the nuances. Listening is a learned skill, not an absolute innate trait or a product of someone's imagination. But for now, we have to go with are gut.

 

[GrimSurfer]

The only measurements made on this site are stuff that audio equipment makers are already listing specs on there spec charts, they arent anything speciallyh or any "new" audio science. Don't you people care about like how something acgtually sounds? I could see if new science were being created by it is all the same measurements, that onlyh have to do with stuff like distortion and conductance. If you have something like a tube amp of course it has distortion, isn't that the point of a tube amp? I never understood that. And here it is always the same guy taking measurements, whats to say that if a different person took measurements they might come up with something different. I understand that people here prefer stuff that is transparent, and distortions measurements might show that the most transparent stuff is scoring the best, but transparent doesn't equal good. Everyone likes something different, and until we come up with ways to measure the non-transparent aspects of sound, it is pretty much useless to measure stuff, because even amir admits that most of the measured differences between equipment are inaudible, so what about measuring the actual audible stuff you find in a piece of equipment or cables sound?

Yeah. We should eliminate science, specifications, measurement etc. from society. Healing crystals and animist thought have us pretty much covered.

 

[ahofer]

The only measurements made on this site are stuff that audio equipment makers are already listing specs on there spec charts, they arent anything speciallyh or any "new" audio science. Don't you people care about like how something acgtually sounds? I could see if new science were being created by it is all the same measurements, that onlyh have to do with stuff like distortion and conductance. If you have something like a tube amp of course it has distortion, isn't that the point of a tube amp? I never understood that. And here it is always the same guy taking measurements, whats to say that if a different person took measurements they might come up with something different. I understand that people here prefer stuff that is transparent, and distortions measurements might show that the most transparent stuff is scoring the best, but transparent doesn't equal good. Everyone likes something different, and until we come up with ways to measure the non-transparent aspects of sound, it is pretty much useless to measure stuff, because even amir admits that most of the measured differences between equipment are inaudible, so what about measuring the actual audible stuff you find in a piece of equipment or cables sound?

And just so you guys all know, I do have a degree in the political sciences (government) science degree, so I am very familiar with the empirical measurements of things and science, and that stuff never tells the whole picture. There will always be non-measurable aspects to the nature of things that resist measurments and numbers. maybe some day we will have the technology to explain say why something like a schiit modi multibit or audi-g-d nfb 28 just sounds so much better with better sound stage, imaging, treble response etc than other stuff, and we will look back at this site and laugh how we were in the dark ages then, but for now, we have to go with are gut.

Almost none of this is correct. “Real” blind testing has suggested the opposite, almost without exception. You should really try to prove these beliefs. Do it for charity.

And we do care how things sound. We just think a lot of that can be measured, and there are far fewer (possibly none) unmeasurable sound characteristics. It really comes down to frequency and amplitude.

 

[digicidal]

One thing that I know confounded me in the past and seems to afflict nearly every confident (or committed at least) audiophile - musical signals are not magical in the least. Music itself - like any medium for artistic expression (including language) - creates a sense of the magical due to the ways in which it engages us emotionally. However, there is no more magic in a sound wave than there is in the pigments used in paint or the strokes/syllables used in languages. The medium is almost perfectly measurable and quantifiable - the product, however is completely the opposite.

I can't use measurements of any audio device to prove what will "sound good" or "be enjoyable" to someone listening - any more than I could guess what genre of music they prefer or which instruments are their favorite. So while it may be impossible to tell if someone will find a transparent DAC "clinical" or "dry sounding" - it's completely possible to determine that it is in fact transparent.

If the frequency response is linear within the audible band - they aren't hearing problems with "tone" (they can't be). If the noise floor and distortion products are kept below what's physically audible - they aren't hearing harmonics or noise over the music either. If there aren't significant problems with jitter - then they aren't hearing timing issues or related byproducts. So what are they hearing? The music (and only that)!

Unfortunately, due to the fact that the signal itself has an irrational and subjective nature - all of the above means nothing when asked to speculate if they are "enjoying the experience" nor even if they can "find the difference". This is why (despite many arguments to the contrary) that using single tones or pink noise as a test medium often results in better accuracy during listening tests - trained listeners or not.

I'd guess that a vast majority of those who believe in a magical synergistic approach to gear - aren't actually enjoying listening to music all that much, if at all. They are listening to gear and comparing electronic genitals with fellow gear enthusiasts. Don't get me wrong - I'm a total gear-fetishist - but that has nothing to do with enjoying music either.

Those that are only interested in enjoying a musical performance and nothing else (my wife is one) may have an opinion on the sound, if asked... but they're just as happy listening to it on a $250 AVR and big-box store peakers as they are on a $150K SOTA hifi rig... even happier if it means listening sooner, longer, and with more ease.

Most audiophiles seem to be listening for differences which are difficult if not impossible to measure even with current equipment... in order to find that auditory nirvana. However, since none of those differences is large enough to be found in gear which far exceeds the ability of the ear to hear... the differences must naturally be occurring in the brain itself. So while there may indeed be many breakthroughs to come in this area - they are most assuredly to occur in the fields of psychology, neurochemistry, and sociology than in physics, electronics, or metallurgy.

 

[lowiqaudiophilewgoldenear]

Almost none of this is correct. “Real” blind testing has suggested the opposite, almost without exception. You should really try to prove these beliefs. Do it for charity.

I have already said I dont think the blind test is the best way to measure because many reasons including pressure and because sound is altered by the ways used for level matching etc, and because you can't listen in a vaccuum. maybe it is true that people might not be able to figure out what they are hearing when listening back to back with small clips in a really controlled test environment, but that isn't how we all actually listen to stuff. I'll admit tht some of those tests might point toward the idea that you shouldn't be able to hear actual differences, but in real life listening the differences are pretty easy to tell by someone with a lot of listening fine tuned experience like myself

 

[GrimSurfer]

One thing that I know confounded me in the past and seems to afflict nearly every confident (or committed at least) audiophile - musical signals are not magical in the least. Music itself - like any medium for artistic expression (including language) - creates a sense of the magical due to the ways in which it engages us emotionally. However, there is no more magic in a sound wave than there is in the pigments used in paint or the strokes/syllables used in languages. The medium is almost perfectly measurable and quantifiable - the product, however is completely the opposite.

I can't use measurements of any audio device to prove what will "sound good" or "be enjoyable" to someone listening - any more than I could guess what genre of music they prefer or which instruments are their favorite. So while it may be impossible to tell if someone will find a transparent DAC "clinical" or "dry sounding" - it's completely possible to determine that it is in fact transparent.

If the frequency response is linear within the audible band - they aren't hearing problems with "tone" (they can't be). If the noise floor and distortion products are kept below what's physically audible - they aren't hearing harmonics or noise over the music either. If there aren't significant problems with jitter - then they aren't hearing timing issues or related byproducts. So what are they hearing? The music (and only that)!

Unfortunately, due to the fact that the signal itself has an irrational and subjective nature - all of the above means nothing when asked to speculate if they are "enjoying the experience" nor even if they can "find the difference". This is why (despite many arguments to the contrary) that using single tones or pink noise as a test medium often results in better accuracy during listening tests - trained listeners or not.

I'd guess that a vast majority of those who believe in a magical synergistic approach to gear - aren't actually enjoying listening to music all that much, if at all. They are listening to gear and comparing electronic genitals with fellow gear enthusiasts. Don't get me wrong - I'm a total gear-fetishist - but that has nothing to do with enjoying music either.

Those that are only interested in enjoying a musical performance and nothing else (my wife is one) may have an opinion on the sound, if asked... but they're just as happy listening to it on a $250 AVR and big-box store peakers as they are on a $150K SOTA hifi rig... even happier if it means listening sooner, longer, and with more ease.

Most audiophiles seem to be listening for differences which are difficult if not impossible to measure even with current equipment... in order to find that auditory nirvana. However, since none of those differences is large enough to be found in gear which far exceeds the ability of the ear to hear... the differences must naturally be occurring in the brain itself. So while there may indeed be many breakthroughs to come in this area - they are most assuredly to occur in the fields of psychology, neurochemistry, and sociology than in physics, electronics, or metallurgy.

Excellent point, @digicidal, as many of your posts so often are.

1. The greater the divide between science, and people's understanding of it, the more "magical" is becomes. (So-called Audiofool)

2. The more somebody can proclaim that they appreciate the magic (or wield it), the more special they become in the eyes of the people who don't understand it. (So-called Audiophile)

in real life listening the differences are pretty easy to tell by someone with a lot of listening fine tuned experience like myself

I had a feeling it was going to come to this...

 

[ahofer]

I have already said I dont think the blind test is the best way to measure because many reasons including pressure and because sound is altered by the ways used for level matching etc, and because you can't listen in a vaccuum. maybe it is true that people might not be able to figure out what they are hearing when listening back to back with small clips in a really controlled test environment, but that isn't how we all actually listen to stuff. I'll admit tht some of those tests might point toward the idea that you shouldn't be able to hear actual differences, but in real life listening the differences are pretty easy to tell by someone with a lot of listening fine tuned experience like myself

So you can tell them apart when you already know which is which. Your "fine-tuned experience" is just hollow bluster.

Sorry, you can't prove something is *audible* without controlling for the other senses, which play havoc with your ears. Of course you don't level-match when you compare, so that's probably the primary culprit.

Here are two good threads with compendia of various blind tests.

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths.486598/

https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,82777.0.html

And consider the fact that fast A/B testing actually improves the ability to discriminate audible phenomena, not the other way around:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ity-and-reliability-of-abx-blind-testing.186/

You are making claims in an evidence-free environment.

Also, here's an educational thread from a speaker designer (Harbeth). You might want to scroll back, but the post linked is an interesting one:

https://www.harbeth.co.uk/usergroup...hts-with-an-amp-maker.79659/page-4#post-80757