or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › CD Players & Dedicated Music Transports › Low vs mid vs high priced DACs?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Low vs mid vs high priced DACs? - Page 5

post #121 of 232
Thanks, I should have been more clear. This is for my office PC to receiver connection by least expensive I meant <$100. Since I can see them from $17.00 to $1,700 I'd get simply the best sound I can from my PC using a $30 one? or are those 'more' broken?
post #122 of 232
Thread Starter 
I have tested a few DACs in the < $700 category. my subjective impressions led me to conclude that on a cheap system the differences are almost indiscernible. for what it's worth, the list price (meaning that's not what I paid for it) of my system is a bit below $10000. the difference between a $100 DAC and a $700 one wasn't night and day on it. discernible but not major.
if I were you, for a PC system I'd get something like the FiiO Taishan. around 40 in US dollars I think. don't get impressed by the overpriced crap like NuForce of Audioquest, they're just the most basic implementations from an application note with a nice case and a lot of marketing surrounding them.
just my opinion.
Edited by gn77b - 2/3/13 at 8:51am
post #123 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by colohtpc View Post

Can some one direct me to ones that are least expensive and have been proven not to have something wrong with them?
You already have one if you own a disc player or receiver.
Quote:
Or is the list of those to avoid shorter?
In a way, yes, those who post their subjective opinion. It may be useful for their own consumption but not for others whom they've never met. As they say, one man's treasure is another man's garbage.
post #124 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by gn77b View Post

I ...
if I were you, for a PC system I'd get something like the FiiO Taishan. around 40 in US dollars I think. don't get impressed by the overpriced crap like NuForce of Audioquest, they're just the most basic implementations from an application note with a nice case and a lot of marketing surrounding them.
just my opinion.

That is closer to what I was thinking. This model has no USB Input, leading to my next question I have onboard audio right now connected with 3.5mm stereo to RCA cable. I can use the TOSLink off the motherboard as well for this unit. I was thinking of bypassing that and instead using USB direct I thought I read that would be best/better. Thoughts?
post #125 of 232
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

In a way, yes, those who post their subjective opinion.
diomania seems to be implying that you should ignore his opinions. interesting paradox.
he also fails to realize (I think it's something relating to one's fundamental inner structure) that a blind belief in anything at all, be it expensive cables or ABX is just that: a blind, unsubstantiated, belief. DBT or ABX is a false God just like some people's false God is multi kilodollar cables.
if you want a bit of amusement, watch the South Park episode where Eric travels to a future where religion is gone and replaced by an absolute belief in science smile.gif they say "oh my science" instead of "oh my God". really funny but exposes a very profound issue which many people are unaware of.
to complete the curriculum, maybe consider reading a bit on philosophy (yes, not a mistake) of science smile.gif
post #126 of 232
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by colohtpc View Post

That is closer to what I was thinking. This model has no USB Input, leading to my next question I have onboard audio right now connected with 3.5mm stereo to RCA cable. I can use the TOSLink off the motherboard as well for this unit. I was thinking of bypassing that and instead using USB direct I thought I read that would be best/better. Thoughts?
sorry, I was under the impression that the Taishan has USB input.
the Behringer UCA202 should be perfect, it has USB input and RCA outputs. there's a mod somewhere on the web to make the headphone output more usable, it involves changing a resistor I think.

and related to the DAC debate, here's an anecdote for you.
I think I mentioned that I used to own the Arcam rDAC. there are numerous "subjective" reviews on the web mentioning that the coax input sounds significantly worse compared to the USB one. including a guy on a local forum that said he did not expect such a large difference. I never tested it because I did not own a device with S/PDIF out at the time.
there was a guy on a Chinese forum or something that thought about measuring the jitter of the two inputs. guess what? the S/PDIF in turned to be significantly worse.
yes, maybe that is a case of a bad implementation but I guess some people are able to tell if a bad implementation is present in a DAC just by looking at its case, without listening to it?
Edited by gn77b - 2/3/13 at 9:52am
post #127 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by colohtpc View Post

Hey rough playground here. The headline brought me in. So can I ask a question since all DAC's are the same, except for the ones that have something wrong with them. Can some one direct me to ones that are least expensive and have been proven not to have something wrong with them? I'll worry about aesthetics, cool case materials, fit and finish after I have a short list. Thanks, Or is the list of those to avoid shorter?

If we're talking USB DACs my benchmark in this product category is the Behringer UCA 202 - about $30.
post #128 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by gn77b View Post

there was a guy on a Chinese forum or something that thought about measuring the jitter of the two inputs. guess what? the S/PDIF in turned to be significantly worse.
yes, maybe that is a case of a bad implementation but I guess some people are able to tell if a bad implementation is present in a DAC just by looking at its case, without listening to it?

Are you sure that you aren't repeating the myth that anytime there is a measurable difference that there has to be an audible difference?
post #129 of 232
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Are you sure that you aren't repeating the myth that anytime there is a measurable difference that there has to be an audible difference?
yes. are you sure you aren't repeating the myth that anytime a DBT renders a null result, the difference is non existent?
if I were to try and understand your point of view, I'd blame it on the extremist audiofool. precisely the type that gushes over "extraordinary" (usually more colorful vernacular is used) differences, but as soon as he is subjected to ABX or any sort of DBT, no difference is revealed. those are idiots that do no good to the community and I think they are just trying to justify a purchase to themselves. I'd suggest to those types to look into other hobbies or alternatively to get a life.
this doesn't mean that some differences don't actually exist.
in the past I thought that I found differences that (even in non blind tests) proved to be imagined. other differences proved to be real.
want more anecdotes? I personally know a guy who owns a $60k system. he told me about the cables he uses. he tested many expensive speaker and interconnect cables and in the end he chose the cheapest speaker cable from the department store. the interconnect he chose was also of the most basic type. he also tested a few power cords. he ended up spending many hundreds on his choice.
now, why would anyone spending 60k on a system skimp on speaker cables and ICs and spend a lot on power chords? especially when he tested them?
post #130 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

If we're talking USB DACs my benchmark in this product category is the Behringer UCA 202 - about $30.

I think I'll give this a whirl. Can you or anyone confirm or deny that in a pc using the usb is better than onboard audio out and / or TOSLink?
post #131 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by colohtpc View Post

Hey rough playground here. The headline brought me in. So can I ask a question since all DAC's are the same, except for the ones that have something wrong with them. Can some one direct me to ones that are least expensive and have been proven not to have something wrong with them? I'll worry about aesthetics, cool case materials, fit and finish after I have a short list. Thanks, Or is the list of those to avoid shorter?



Some members on this website claim to hear a difference in DAC's. If you have read through this thread you'll understand why most don't speak up about their experience. And that is what they should clai, in their "experience" they have heard a difference. If you'd like to dig into why "we" hear differently, well, that is when the fun begins.

I own 2 DAC's this: http://www.parasound.com/ParasoundZ/zdac.php is the least expensive of the 2, I own the Silver model, works great with my Mac Mini plugged into it playing AIFF files through the USB input.
post #132 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by colohtpc View Post

Thanks, I should have been more clear. This is for my office PC to receiver connection by least expensive I meant <$100. Since I can see them from $17.00 to $1,700 I'd get simply the best sound I can from my PC using a $30 one? or are those 'more' broken?

Scratch my Z-dac recommendation...just read your budget.
post #133 of 232
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by K Shep View Post

If you'd like to dig into why "we" hear differently, well, that is when the fun begins.
I remember someone writing in this thread that I probably own a poor system, compared to other posters.
that was absolute speculation as I hadn't mentioned anything about my current DAC, amp and speakers. yet, some people have the nerve to write that one shouldn't take advice from random strangers on the net smile.gif how's that for double standard? smile.gif
Edited by gn77b - 2/3/13 at 1:43pm
post #134 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by colohtpc View Post

Thanks, I should have been more clear. This is for my office PC to receiver connection by least expensive I meant <$100. Since I can see them from $17.00 to $1,700 I'd get simply the best sound I can from my PC using a $30 one? or are those 'more' broken?

This company has a little buz regarding quality built DAC's the MODI looks interesting, powered via the USB cable.

http://schiit.com/cart/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=0&products_id=14

And it's $99.
post #135 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by gn77b View Post


now, why would anyone spending 60k on a system skimp on speaker cables and ICs and spend a lot on power chords? especially when he tested them?

Possibly a result of the unpredictability which is part and parcel of expectation bias, a more complicated phenomenon than the commonly over-simplified reduction to a, "more expensive/reputable = likely to sound better" assessment.

I often read on audio forums about people who don't think they are subject to conscious or subconscious bias. Their supporting evidence is descriptions of how they have sometimes in their lives rejected the more expensive (fill-in-the-blank) component for a lesser expensive or less prestigious one. Which they then take to mean that they don't fool themselves or get fooled easily, seeing things as they are and not what they wish them to be. Which then provides them with the false confidence about the other choices they make, particularly when the more expensive option ends up being their preferred choice in some cases.

With expectation bias, it doesn't always boil down to a simplistic, "more expensive = perception of superiority". Other subconscious biases can creep in and alter perception in less predictable ways than this most obvious way. In the case of someone rejecting expensive speaker cables and ICs but not power cords, given how the latter is also subject the same audible threshold detection limits as the former and therefore not likely to be any audibly different either, my inclination would be that this divergence was simply the case of expectation bias manifesting itself in different ways for speaker cables/ICs vs power cords with that listener.

It's not the only possible explanation of course but as I must get up early tomorrow it's the only possibility I am willing to delve into for now. biggrin.gif
post #136 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

However, I decided to take your comment seriously, and found that in the 20:00-22:00 range he is actually making some sense.

However, he starts inventing science again right around 22:50.

I thought the idea of science was to explore the boundaries of the things we don't know... not to be a bunch of arrogant know-it-alls.
post #137 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi2 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

However, I decided to take your comment seriously, and found that in the 20:00-22:00 range he is actually making some sense.

However, he starts inventing science again right around 22:50.

I thought the idea of science was to explore the boundaries of the things we don't know... not to be a bunch of arrogant know-it-alls.

Actually, the idea of science is to obtain reliable information and apply it correctly. Believe it or not, many of the frontiers have been visited many times and are nicely mapped out.

There is someone who knows more about anything than just about anybody you will ever meet. However, the person you meet may:

(1) The person you meet may know more than you, believe it or not! ;-)

(2) The person you meet may know everything that is needed to deal with your situation ideally.

That doesn't make them a know-it-all.

If you attack them, then there is a know-it-all in the situation, but it isn't him! ;-)

In this particular case there is quite a bit of relevant science, and this guy is essentially claiming that it is all wrong. Given the other goof-ups he made prior to this, it is unlikely that he knows something that nobody else knows.
post #138 of 232
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

In this particular case there is quite a bit of relevant science, and this guy is essentially claiming that it is all wrong. Given the other goof-ups he made prior to this, it is unlikely that he knows something that nobody else knows.
this topic started with sweeping statements like that so I'm not exactly surprised it continues.
what is the relevant science? what goof-ups?
let me give you an example. the Fletcher-Munson curves have been determined a long time ago, I think in the 30s. by looking at them one would assume there is a huge variation of tonality with SPL. of course there is some variance but it doesn't seem as high as the plots would indicate. why is that? because they used sines to determine them and (likely at neural level) the perception changes depending on program material. my ears tell me that and one of the papers I linked above confirms it.
having said that, my BS detectors tend to become alert whenever people claim that "all the relevant science is known".
Quote:
Originally Posted by CruelInventions View Post

Possibly a result of the unpredictability which is part and parcel of expectation bias, a more complicated phenomenon than the commonly over-simplified reduction to a, "more expensive/reputable = likely to sound better" assessment.
that may be true but IMO expectation bias is not less of a problem than the noise introduced by DBT. what I don't get is... how come expectation bias is taken from granted while the problems of DBTs are ignored off-hand?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CruelInventions View Post

In the case of someone rejecting expensive speaker cables and ICs but not power cords, given how the latter is also subject the same audible threshold detection limits as the former and therefore not likely to be any audibly different either, my inclination would be that this divergence was simply the case of expectation bias manifesting itself in different ways for speaker cables/ICs vs power cords with that listener.
that is an assertion if I understand it correctly. are you saying that a power cable can't affect the sound in ways different than an IC or speaker cable? I disagree and have enough reasons to think the contrary. this doesn't in any way mean that a good power cable must be expensive.

the problem with DBT (I don't know if said it before and I don't care to reread the topic) is the way such tests are usually organized. a proper test is hard (expensive) to set up. the usual tests are botched. in my view a proper DBT should use experienced listeners with good hearing (not too old), the best equipment available in well-treated rooms, the music should be familiar and pre-exposure to the "DUT" should be allowed. also, the listening sessions should be long-enough but not too long so that fatigue doesn't set-in, the switching from A to B should be at the listeners altitude. and maybe most importantly, no outside pressure "c'mon, decide already" and a quiet room, not filled with people.
I think you agree that such a test would be very hard to set-up, not to mention tedious for both the listener and the test organizers.
what a "regular" DBT eliminates is obvious differences and that's all. with audio as well as with everything else the law of diminishing returns applies and with expensive gear the differences aren't exactly obvious. generally the 20/80 rule applies, as in you pay 20% of the price to get 80% of the results. if you want to get the remaining 1/4 of quality you need to pay 4 times more. of course, the question is, how does one measure perception to such a precise degree?

having read a number of scientific studies on psychoacoustics, one thing I can tell is that some don't seem to be properly set-up. many are done at universities, either by teachers or as part of PhDs etc. when did the average university gain access to good audio reproduction equipment? how does one assess differences when $10 PC speakers are used? and, sorry to be blunt, but if students are used for evaluating those differences, well... I think the average iPod listener is not exactly qualified. IME, on first exposure to a good stereo, most people seem rather confused and don't know exactly what to listen for. listening is partially an acquired skill.

of course there is another side to it. for instance pressure occurs when dealer borrows equipment to potential buyer, agreeing for a week of evaluation. after a couple of days dealer calls and say, you know, that's the last I have on stock and another guy showed interest, better make up your mind fast. maybe potential buyer came late from work and wasn't able to properly audition at revelant SPLs? so potential buyer either takes a rash decision and buys. or he refrains from buying and dealer says you know I lost another potential customer because I borrowed this to you. meaning that "next time there'll be no borrowing". yes, those guys are actually out to get your money and they know how, that's why they started the distribution business in the first place smile.gif
of course I'm aware that such things happen but it's not always the case. for instance, I bought my current speakers after a week of evaluation in my home with no pressure involved.

but what's funny is that generally, and this likely includes most posters here, irrespective of the side they take and the price involved, the buying decision is not a result of a DBT, not even a botched one, but of short, sighted evaluation smile.gif

what I'm trying to say is that one must be aware that there's always another side to the coin.

all this will likely be solved the moment we reach a thorough understanding of how our brain and hearing work. that'll be the moment when we know to what extent expectation bias influences our perception. also to what extend DBT introduces errors. it's obvious to me that in the year 2013 our understanding is primitive and there are more important things for science to determine. until that happens we'll continue having lots of Internet debates based on speculation.
post #139 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by gn77b View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

In this particular case there is quite a bit of relevant science, and this guy is essentially claiming that it is all wrong. Given the other goof-ups he made prior to this, it is unlikely that he knows something that nobody else knows.
this topic started with sweeping statements like that so I'm not exactly surprised it continues.

I guess you haven't noticed how many sweeping statements there are in the talk itself.
Quote:
what is the relevant science?

If you don't already know, then you can't possibly have an informed opinon about his talk.
Quote:
what goof-ups?

If you don't already know, then you don't already have an informed opinion about his talk.
Quote:
let me give you an example. the Fletcher-Munson curves have been determined a long time ago, I think in the 30s. by looking at them one would assume there is a huge variation of tonality with SPL. of course there is some variance but it doesn't seem as high as the plots would indicate. why is that?

If you don't already know, then you don't have an informed opinion about the Fletcher Munson curves. What I see is a completely unsupported opinion about the Fletcher Munson curves. You don't want to believe them? Fine! Your next logical step would be to do something of equal or better scientific stature that disproves or modifies them.
Quote:
because they used sines to determine them and (likely at neural level) the perception changes depending on program material.

You are faulting Fletcher and Munson because they didn't answer a different question. You seem to be making a common logical error and that is extending evidence beyond its intended range and then faulting it for not being the be-all and end-all.

What I see is a list of riddles that you appear to be offering as responses to simple questions that I asked and you don't want to answer. You've got a big backlog of questions I asked and you never answered.

You are of course aware that a conversation is composed of relevant responses, right? I don't think you are interested in a conversation. You don't seem to want to be correct, you seem to want to be right. about everything ;-)
post #140 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by gn77b View Post

I have tested a few DACs in the < $700 category.

If your so-called tests weren't proper tests including double blind controls then you have yet to do your first actual test.

What really seems to have happened is that you hooked up a bunch of equipment then wrote out the answers to a public opinion survey. ;-)
Quote:
my subjective impressions led me to conclude that on a cheap system the differences are almost indiscernible.

The apparent fallacy here is that there is some kind of monotonic relationship between price and sound quality.
Quote:
for what it's worth, the list price (meaning that's not what I paid for it) of my system is a bit below $10000.

That can be achieved by a bunch of careful decisions or it can be achieved by any old spendthift who is willing to take on debt.
Quote:
the difference between a $100 DAC and a $700 one wasn't night and day on it. discernible but not major.

Here we see yet another repetition of the fallacy that there is some kind of monotonic relationship between price and sound quality. This is getting boring for me! Two words come to mind: Nouveau riche ;-)
post #141 of 232
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

I guess you haven't noticed how many sweeping statements there are in the talk itself.
I generally expect such sweeping statements from a presentation like that. I never said it was rigorous science, neither quoted it as proof.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

If you don't already know, then you can't possibly have an informed opinon about his talk.
I conjecture that this applies to many of the wanna-be scientists here. out of mere curiosity, I searched for some of their previous posts. some (not all) seem to be just repeating vague statements over and over again. you accuse me of wrong doings, while ignoring yours. like I said, I don't expect that we ever break this vicious circle, not in the near future smile.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

What I see is a completely unsupported opinion about the Fletcher Munson curves. You don't want to believe them? Fine! Your next logical step would be to do something of equal or better scientific stature that disproves or modifies them.
the way I see it, for you "supported" equals "renowned scientist said it". renowned scientists said a lot of wrong things and the examples are so common I won't repeat them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

You are faulting Fletcher and Munson because they didn't answer a different question. You seem to be making a common logical error and that is extending evidence beyond its intended range and then faulting it for not being the be-all and end-all.
I am not faulting them. the Fletcher-Munson thing was an example for the fallacy that it's very easy to think that all the relevant science is known and that it applies wherever one feels it should. F-M is viewed by some as the supreme indication of variance of perceived tonality with SPL but it's not. it's, like you said, just a curve that shows how we perceive isolated tones. it is my belief that the same goes for other phenomena that apply to hearing, because it's comfortable to oversimplify.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

What I see is a list of riddles that you appear to be offering as responses to simple questions that I asked and you don't want to answer. You've got a big backlog of questions I asked and you never answered.
remember, I was the one asking a question in the OP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

You are of course aware that a conversation is composed of relevant responses, right?
yes, and broad statements don't apply as such. all I ever saw from the responders to my original question was sweeping statements, followed by demands. I conjecture again and speculate that the level of understanding of some people here is at the "quickly browsed through Wiki article" level.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

You don't seem to want to be correct, you seem to want to be right. about everything ;-)
interesting. some member here sent me a message which said he thinks that of you. well, I guess it depends on who's looking at it.


here's a deal for you. the second you point me to some relevant, credible literature proving that the problems of double blind testing in audio which I mentioned are non-existent and that expectation bias is indeed a bigger problem, I'll write with bold, large and red characters that I'm full of ****. "credible" excludes "renowned scientist of arnyk's preference thinks so but doesn't care to prove it" or stuff like that. until then, I'll continue using your own weapons.
Edited by gn77b - 2/4/13 at 8:07am
post #142 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by gn77b View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

I guess you haven't noticed how many sweeping statements there are in the talk itself.
I generally expect such sweeping statements from a presentation like that. I never said it was rigorous science, neither quoted it as proof.

Who says anything posted here is rigorous science?
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

If you don't already know, then you can't possibly have an informed opinon about his talk.
I conjecture that this applies to many of the wanna-be scientists here. out of mere curiosity, I searched for some of their previous posts. some (not all) seem to be just repeating vague statements over and over again. you accuse me of wrong doings, while ignoring yours. like I said, I don't expect that we ever break this vicious circle, not in the near future smile.gif

I don't see your license for criticizing people for being wanna-be scientists.

You can find mine if you look for it. ;-)
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

You are faulting Fletcher and Munson because they didn't answer a different question. You seem to be making a common logical error and that is extending evidence beyond its intended range and then faulting it for not being the be-all and end-all.
I am not faulting them. the Fletcher-Munson thing was an example for the fallacy that it's very easy to think that all the relevant science is known and that it applies wherever one feels it should. F-M is viewed by some as the supreme indication of variance of perceived tonality with SPL but it's not. it's, like you said, just a curve that shows how we perceive isolated tones. it is my belief that the same goes for other phenomena that apply to hearing, because it's comfortable to oversimplify.

The obvious flaw here is criticizing a comment based on the Fletcher Munson curves which we both seem to know is 80 year old technology, on the grounds that it is not all relevant science. Of course it isn't all relevant science! What sort of person would argue against it on those spurious grounds?

BTW I guess you can't put 2 and 2 together. Pure tones are easier to detect in a noisy context than complex musical sounds. Therefore, the F&M curves are still relevant as an extreme case. If F&M show that something is below threshold, any more complex sound is only going to be harder to hear.
post #143 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by gn77b View Post

I'm full of ****.

More or less. Your posts read like you are. ;-)
Quote:
"credible" excludes "renowned scientist of arnyk's preference thinks so but doesn't care to prove it" or stuff like that. until then, I'll continue using your own weapons.

I've posted adequate proof here so many times that every time this topic comes up I do a quick analysis whether I cut and past from the >100th time I posted it here before or write it from new.

What I learned is that many many people if not most don't believe in doing research. I've also found that very few people have the convictions of their beliefs. Nobody seems to like to do homework.

As far as this discussion of DAC quality goes, it is really simple for you if you have the conviction of your apparent beliefs. Just do a good relevant DBT with a positive outcome showing that you or someone you can find can reliably hear difference between your favorite golden DAC and say a $30 Behringer UCA 202.

I've done stuff like that many, many times so there is very little I can learn of value from doing it again. But your usual internet eggspurt will point out that I'm old, feeble, and biased. Besides, its a lot cheaper to come up with a $30 DAC than the overpriced hardware that many push around here.
post #144 of 232
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

I don't see your license for criticizing people for being wanna-be scientists.

You can find mine if you look for it. ;-)
I don't need a license. but there's a high degree of probability that some of the posters here (I'm not talking about you) don't know the relevant science and are just blind followers of a concept they once fell in love with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

The obvious flaw here is criticizing a comment based on the Fletcher Munson curves which we both seem to know is 80 year old technology, on the grounds that it is not all relevant science. Of course it isn't all relevant science! What sort of person would argue against it on those spurious grounds?
you are misinterpreting my example. we'll leave it like that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

BTW I guess you can't put 2 and 2 together.
but maybe there's still some hope for me...
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Pure tones are easier to detect in a noisy context than complex musical sounds. Therefore, the F&M curves are still relevant as an extreme case. If F&M show that something is below threshold, any more complex sound is only going to be harder to hear.
I tend to think the same. but I also constantly seem to remember that there's a lot of funny, very non-linear stuff going on inside our brains and who knows... it is comfortable to assume that the above is true, after all, most of the systems theory is based on the assumption of superposition so that it can easily manipulate something based on a relatively simple mathematical model but OTOH what it does is bend reality to fit a certain model. in certain cases it's good enough, in others, not.
one can devise a computer program such that certain input is completely ignored in certain situations but absolutely detected and accounted for in others. and as far as I'm concerned our brain is a complex computer program.


the offer stands.
post #145 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by gn77b View Post

I tend to think the same. but I also constantly seem to remember that there's a lot of funny, very non-linear stuff going on inside our brains and who knows...

There you go again - idle speculation trumps reliable science in your world, it seems.
Quote:
it is comfortable to assume that the above is true, after all, most of the systems theory is based on the assumption of superposition so that it can easily manipulate something based on a relatively simple mathematical model but OTOH what it does is bend reality to fit a certain model. in certain cases it's good enough, in others, not.

Blather, blather, blather.

Do some good real world listening tests and you will change your tune!

Everybody seems to.
post #146 of 232
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Your posts read like you are. ;-)
same goes for you too. we'll let the audience decide.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

I've posted adequate proof here so many times that every time this topic comes up I do a quick analysis whether I cut and past from the >100th time I posted it here before or write it from new.
quick analysis times the number the topic showed up amounts to a greater effort than linking to the places you proved that in the past.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

What I learned is that many many people if not most don't believe in doing research. I've also found that very few people have the convictions of their beliefs. Nobody seems to like to do homework.
I agree. it is my view on a large portion of the audiophile community.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

As far as this discussion of DAC quality goes, it is really simple for you if you have the conviction of your apparent beliefs. Just do a good relevant DBT with a positive outcome showing that you or someone you can find can reliably hear difference between your favorite golden DAC and say a $30 Behringer UCA 202.
I'll try to do it when I build an instant switching box with an attenuator for level matching. I think my skills are adequate to do it properly.
post #147 of 232
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

There you go again - idle speculation trumps reliable science in your world, it seems.
Blather, blather, blather.

Do some good real world listening tests and you will change your tune!

Everybody seems to.
maybe. OTOH, personal experiments in the past (hard to DBT that so we'll have to leave it like that) showed that room treatment has a great effect on the sound. even if I'm not able to tell a difference in my system in my room, does it prove that the differences are non-existent with any system, in any room?
post #148 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by gn77b View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

There you go again - idle speculation trumps reliable science in your world, it seems.
Blather, blather, blather.

Do some good real world listening tests and you will change your tune!

Everybody seems to.
maybe. OTOH, personal experiments in the past (hard to DBT that so we'll have to leave it like that) showed that room treatment has a great effect on the sound. even if I'm not able to tell a difference in my system in my room, does it prove that the differences are non-existent with any system, in any room?

It appears that you think that room treatment DBTs are fully comparable to DAC DBTs, even though you have already conceded that while DACs are pretty reasonable to DBT and we all know that DBTs of room treatments are very hard.

IOW you are arguing that they are the same even though you have previously admitted that they aren't.

Are you one confused puppy or what?

Now lets get into the DAC DBTs. Look at the measured performance of a good DAC and compare that to what is known about the audibility of technical differences. The nonlinear distortion products are probably too low to hear, and the same applies to the frequency and measured phase response and frequency response data. Looks like a tough listening test!

Actually do the listening test and it is tough! Mission Impossible.

Repeat with a few dozen different DACs. Still very tough - impossible. Get friends involved. Still impossible.

Do it by cascading ADC/DAC pairs for up to 30 repetitions. 30 repetitions of a mediocre DAC might be just heard, but for a real good DAC, 20 reps and not so much. Cut back to 10 reps, and it is impossible no matter what. Is there a trend here or what? ;-)

You say you have a couple of DACs. I still have something like 30 or more kicking around the house. More if I include the embedded DACs in music players, etc. Best of the bunch is a LynxTWO computer audio interface. I also have 2 Audio Precision test sets. The HP 339 is someplace else.
post #149 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Actually, the idea of science is to obtain reliable information and apply it correctly. Believe it or not, many of the frontiers have been visited many times and are nicely mapped out.

I think you are confusing the method of science with why we do science. You seem to be looking at things more like an engineer or an IT systems analyst.

Galileo and Einstein both thought the existing textbooks were wrong and speculated. The beauty of science is that it is open to the possibility that we have it wrong and that it can make complete U-turns if need be. It is the complete opposite of absolutes and "we know everything".
post #150 of 232
Thread Starter 
it's no surprise that the Lynx is a good SC. it is pro-oriented and the pro audio domain has lower profit margins and those guys are hard to fool because they are spending money in order to make money. normally I'd only buy pro gear, I personally don't care much for heavy aluminum cases which cost thousands to make and are ugly 99% of the time, like those usually made for the audiofool community. give me a raw looking rack mount case any time, I'll even have fun of the snobs that try to pick on its looks.

note that I ignored the ad-hominems, although I found that the forum has an ignore feature. I might decide to use it eventually.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › CD Players & Dedicated Music Transports › Low vs mid vs high priced DACs?