Speakers (headphones, too) respond only to the voltage impressed across their input terminals, nothing else. So, if DAC A and DAC B both cause identical voltages to appear across the speakers' terminals (this is what is measured), then how could the DACs possibly sound different? If there is a difference in S.Q., then the voltages of the two sources have to be different in amplitude or timing in some way. Those are measurable entities, done with instrumentation that is vastly more sensitive than our hearing is. Can you hear the difference between 0.05% and .005% THD? Not likely. The instrument readily can. Of course If you can't hear the difference between the two distortion levels, then why worry about it? Enjoy the music and be done with it. An urge for perfectionism would be the only motive for getting one's underwear in a bunch over it.
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
The cliches of subjective audiophilia...
- Thread starter Victor Martell
- Start date
This thread reminds me a bit of the "gish-gallop" technique used by climate change (AGW/CC) deniers who either don't understand that long-established and frequently confirmed scientific findings are rarely overturned, or are the babblings of people who are in the throes of deep psychological denial.
Last edited:
audio2design
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2020
- Messages
- 1,769
- Likes
- 1,830
Sorry, it was sarc. I have an odd sense of humor!
Well, when it comes to the cause of global Warming and its effects, you can't find too many people that are not crazy. Besides being crazy, they have no idea how studies and research are funded. But, we will go broke trying to change the planets weather on a global scale. Only to have the planet change again to the opposite, global cooling!
Isn't it pretty to think so? Though on a forum nominally devoted to science, not so much. Anthropogenic global warming by definition means we are *already* changing the planet's climate on a global scale. And no, barring some truly cosmic intervention, the earth system won't flip to cooling on its own, unfortunately for our kids and grandkids. So it's up to us to put the brakes on the warming we're causing. And it's clear you have no idea how climate science is funded (hint: the same way biomedical research is funded...via peer-reviewed grants from government agencies).
Thanks for that low-threat reply @krabapple - you obviously understand climate science and its current findings. I just wasn't going to risk another contentious off-topic thread-derailing argument based on a response to my denial-o-sphere analogy. Science communication experts and researchers ore busy these days exploring how to best change the opinions of those who deny the findings of science, although for audio, science denial is not "society and civilization threatening" as it is in climate change (AGW/CC) and pandemic medicine.
Last edited:
