or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › CD Players & Dedicated Music Transports › To DAC or not to DAC
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

To DAC or not to DAC - Page 3

post #61 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinkeldink

on a totally different note, in my experience if u wanna take the harshness out of your tannoy's some good tube amplification might be for u.


More to the point would be a good equalizer or appropriate room acoustic treatments or even just repositioning your speakers so you aren't looking down their throats.




That too dinkeldink, although i do prefer to have my system sound the way i sound it without an equalizer, but again, i guess one needs a lot of resources ( read people who wanna let u borrow their equipmen in your room for as long as u need it ) but a good equalizer would definitely be a valid option too imho and ofcourse like i stated earlier, placement of speakers in your room. (again i value good placement in a good room so that equalizing and roomcorrection becomes irrelevent, even degrading).
post #62 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by mvppsu View Post

Anyone sitting in the room would hear the difference regardless of volume. It is very obvious.
Unless that 'anyone' has marginal/poor hearing (age will do that) and is embarked on a crusade of convincing the rest of the world that they cannot have a better hearing.

Now, I cannot do a serious comparative listening with speakers. Only (some) headphones can reveal the differences properly to me. Grado is one of the brands of headphones that helps with this.
post #63 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by mvppsu View Post

Anyone sitting in the room would hear the difference regardless of volume. It is very obvious.
Unless that 'anyone' has marginal/poor hearing (age will do that) and is embarked on a crusade of convincing the rest of the world that they cannot have a better hearing.

Now, I cannot do a serious comparative listening with speakers. Only (some) headphones can reveal the differences properly to me. Grado is one of the brands of headphones that helps with this.

rolleyes.gif
post #64 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by mvppsu View Post

Anyone sitting in the room would hear the difference regardless of volume. It is very obvious.
Unless that 'anyone' has marginal/poor hearing (age will do that) and is embarked on a crusade of convincing the rest of the world that they cannot have a better hearing.

Now, I cannot do a serious comparative listening with speakers. Only (some) headphones can reveal the differences properly to me. Grado is one of the brands of headphones that helps with this.

Sighted evaluations, right?

You might be hearing a real difference or your perceptions might be strongly affected by what you what marketing you have received including most listening tests.
post #65 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Face2 View Post


Have you performed any testing yourself? If so, which models, etc...?

I have, although it was about a dozen years ago. We tested cheap and expensive CD players as well as separate DAC's in bias controlled tests. We weren't able to get any consistent read on differences in audibility. Our conclusion was that DAC's were right behind cables as audiophile fantasies. My adivce is always to look to speakers and room acoustics for sound improvements. The digital input devices are pretty well perfected.
post #66 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by bfreedma View Post

The volume difference you describe has repeatedly been proven to influence perception of SQ. Unless you aren't human, you're as susceptible to that as the rest of us - that's why the focus on level matching.
So when you turn the volume up with 3dB you think the music sounds BETTER? Then you have to educate your ears more. Only somebody that has his brain washed by years of compressed mp3's blasting from in-ear buds can say that "louder is better".
This is one of the worst legends that I keep seeing circulated on the net.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Sighted evaluations, right?

You might be hearing a real difference or your perceptions might be strongly affected by what you what marketing you have received including most listening tests.
Some people can hear better than you, learn to live with it. Some people can run faster than me, some can play better golf than me, some can do better math... that's life. I don't try to convince them that they have hallucinations.
Edited by SoNic67 - 8/3/13 at 10:50am
post #67 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

Some people can hear better than you, learn to live with it. Some people can run faster than me, some can play better golf than me, some can do better math... that's life. I don't try to convince them that they have hallucinations.

You forgot to add that some may know a lot more about this subject than you do. biggrin.gif
post #68 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by bfreedma View Post

The volume difference you describe has repeatedly been proven to influence perception of SQ. Unless you aren't human, you're as susceptible to that as the rest of us - that's why the focus on level matching.
So when you turn the volume up with 3dB you think the music sounds BETTER? Then you have to educate your ears more. Only somebody that has his brain washed by years of compressed mp3's blasting from in-ear buds can say that "louder is better".
This is one of the worst legends that I keep seeing circulated on the net.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Sighted evaluations, right?

You might be hearing a real difference or your perceptions might be strongly affected by what you what marketing you have received including most listening tests.
Some people can hear better than you, learn to live with it.

I'm sure that some people can hear better than I, which is I many of the DBTs I've been involved with used a listening panel composed of many experienced audiophiles. We looked at their individual scores to see if there were any golden ears, and we summed them together to get a more sensitive test with more trials. No joy!

We've found is that many true believers who thought there were mind-blowing differences between DACs and CD players were reduced to random guessing when they couldn't use their eyes to "hear" what item was playing.

Based on your comments, you've never had the pleasure of listening tests where your biases and best wishes meant nothing, and it was all up to just your ears.
post #69 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by bfreedma View Post

The volume difference you describe has repeatedly been proven to influence perception of SQ. Unless you aren't human, you're as susceptible to that as the rest of us - that's why the focus on level matching.
So when you turn the volume up with 3dB you think the music sounds BETTER? Then you have to educate your ears more. Only somebody that has his brain washed by years of compressed mp3's blasting from in-ear buds can say that "louder is better".
This is one of the worst legends that I keep seeing circulated on the net.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Sighted evaluations, right?

You might be hearing a real difference or your perceptions might be strongly affected by what you what marketing you have received including most listening tests.
Some people can hear better than you, learn to live with it. Some people can run faster than me, some can play better golf than me, some can do better math... that's life. I don't try to convince them that they have hallucinations.

Just because person A has a better measurable range of hearing then person B does not mean there are audible differences amongst modern competently designed dacs. All it proves is that one person has a greater range of frequencies that he can hear over another person. Even at that there are limitations to human hearing that all humans are forced to abide by.

So far the best way to achieve provable audible differences between dacs and other audio components is utilizing DBT methods. Anectodal experiences are not evidence. If one truely thinks the can prove a difference then why the resistance to the DBT tests? The difference are obvious and easily heard right?.....right?
post #70 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

So when you turn the volume up with 3dB you think the music sounds BETTER? Then you have to educate your ears more. Only somebody that has his brain washed by years of compressed mp3's blasting from in-ear buds can say that "louder is better".
This is one of the worst legends that I keep seeing circulated on the net.
Some people can hear better than you, learn to live with it. Some people can run faster than me, some can play better golf than me, some can do better math... that's life. I don't try to convince them that they have hallucinations.

How does one go about "educating" their ears? Don't you mean educating your brain? Because that's where the processing is happening. The ears are just a transducer. And yeah, some people's transducers are better than others, but all are limited. And all brains are subject to lots of preconceived notions, biases, subconscious thoughts, etc, that affect what we hear, or rather, how we process what we hear.
post #71 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

Some people can hear better than you, learn to live with it. 

 

How do you know he can't hear better than you? Not that it makes any difference, as Arny's 'golden ears' blind test results demonstrate. 

post #72 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by beaveav View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

So when you turn the volume up with 3dB you think the music sounds BETTER? Then you have to educate your ears more. Only somebody that has his brain washed by years of compressed mp3's blasting from in-ear buds can say that "louder is better".
This is one of the worst legends that I keep seeing circulated on the net.
Some people can hear better than you, learn to live with it. Some people can run faster than me, some can play better golf than me, some can do better math... that's life. I don't try to convince them that they have hallucinations.

How does one go about "educating" their ears? Don't you mean educating your brain? Because that's where the processing is happening. The ears are just a transducer. And yeah, some people's transducers are better than others, but all are limited. And all brains are subject to lots of preconceived notions, biases, subconscious thoughts, etc, that affect what we hear, or rather, how we process what we hear.

Good point about the fact that hearing is very much a brain thing. The ears are just relatively simple mechanical-chemical interfaces to the brain.

But to answer the question, so called ear training is much like athletic training, and I think there is a lot of similarity between the two.

Basically, you set up a series of challenges ranging from easy to hard, and you repeat your attempts at accomplishing them until you have a high level of proficiency at doing them. Then you go on to a more difficult task.

Just like any other training, one key is having an reliable, objective test to determine proficiency. It turns out that ABX is a good example of such a thing.

One common form of ear training is teaching people how to use an equalizer. Probably one of the most obvious uses of an equalizer is to have people use an equalizer to stop acoustic feedback in a sound system. There are downloadable programs that train people this way.

http://sft.sourceforge.net/

In this case the effect of a correct adjustment is so obvious that no ABX is needed.

When you are good at running this program you will probably enhance your ability to listen to a piece of music and know a priori which equalizer knob or slider to adjust to obtain the desired change.

For other kinds of audible changes, it is usually easy to simulate them or capture them, and then use an audio editor to create audio files that contain the change(s) in various degrees. You start people out comparing unprocessed files to processed files with large changes, and have them ABX them using one of the many software ABX comparators that you can download on the web. When they easily obtain accurate results comparing files with gross differences, you move on to files with more subtle differences. You can take people right down to the threshold of hearing by this means.

Another approach that can be used with lossy audio file compression programs is to start out with low bitrate compression and work up in steps to high bitrate compression.
post #73 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

Some people can hear better than you, learn to live with it. 

How do you know he can't hear better than you? Not that it makes any difference, as Arny's 'golden ears' blind test results demonstrate. 

Sighted evaluations are very susceptible to end up crowning the biggest optimist (or liar) as the chief golden ear.

Think of a race where we don't time the participants or look at some other boring simplistic objective measure such as who crosses the finish line first.

Instead we interview the runners and ask them who they think ran the fastest. To simulate how audiophiles do it, we would have all of the runners run the course separately, maybe 5 minutes apart.

This is obviously balderdash, but it is a good representation of how most audiopiles and subjective reviewers work their magic. ;-)
post #74 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

Some people can hear better than you, learn to live with it. 

How do you know he can't hear better than you? Not that it makes any difference, as Arny's 'golden ears' blind test results demonstrate. 

Sighted evaluations are very susceptible to end up crowning the biggest optimist (or liar) as the chief golden ear.

Think of a race where we don't time the participants or look at some other boring simplistic objective measure such as who crosses the finish line first.

Instead we interview the runners and ask them who they think ran the fastest. To simulate how audiophiles do it, we would have all of the runners run the course separately, maybe 5 minutes apart.

This is obviously balderdash, but it is a good representation of how most audiopiles and subjective reviewers work their magic. ;-)

 

In fact, I think that is a terrific analogy. Very apt.

post #75 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

In fact, I think that is a terrific analogy. Very apt.
+1
post #76 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by beaveav View Post

How does one go about "educating" their ears? Don't you mean educating your brain? Because that's where the processing is happening.
If you would read my next sentence after word "ear" you will find the reference to brain that you missed...
I absolutely think that one need to train his brain to be able to "hear" what ears are providing.
And no, I don't think now I hear better now than anybody, just I can filter with my brain, better that average Joe, what I need to concentrate on. Now I know I used to hear much more when I was 18 year old (I was doing hearing tests on me and friends at that age). So all that mombo-jumbo about "panels of audiophiles" means nothing to me without qualifications.
If they are my age, their ears are probably "done" too. Especially if they don't remove the ear wax at least once a year. If they are young, but with brains used to lossy music coming from ear-buds, their input means jack too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Sighted evaluations are very susceptible to end up crowning the biggest optimist (or liar) as the chief golden ear.
My tests are done just to evaluate my own equipment. I am in no competition, I have no interest in favoring one over another since I paid for all of them and I have no intent of selling them. I buy different DAC's just for my pleasure of hearing the differences. I agree that many sound similar at first, but using my favorite songs selection and concentrating only on some instruments, I can hear differences. And the players/DAC's that "loose", end up in my garage. That's all.

Not capable of any tests as I am now, my right ear got in trouble last week when I flew back from Europe (at landing, coming down from 40000ft with a running nose from allergy). ENT visit scheduled...
Edited by SoNic67 - 8/4/13 at 7:12pm
post #77 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

My tests are done just to evaluate my own equipment. I am in no competition, I have no interest in favoring one over another since I paid for all of them and I have no intent of selling them.
You can't control your subconscious no matter how much you think you can.
Quote:
I buy different DAC's just for my pleasure of hearing the differences. I agree that many sound similar at first, but using my favorite songs selection and concentrating only on some instruments, I can hear differences.
What device did you use for matching levels?
post #78 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Sighted evaluations are very susceptible to end up crowning the biggest optimist (or liar) as the chief golden ear.
My tests are done just to evaluate my own equipment.
OK, It's your personal equipment that you claim is superior and it is your ears that you seem to be claiming to be superior. There's a common thread here, can you see it? ;-)
Quote:
I am in no competition,

You chose to target my ears, so that puts you into a competition with me. It's your equipment, so that creates another competition among the pieces of equipment that you are comparing.
Quote:
I have no interest in favoring one over another since I paid for all of them and I have no intent of selling them.

If your new equipment isn't better sounding than your old equipment, then you just wasted your money and we have motive for favoring the new equipment. OTOH, if you favor your old equipment, then the new equipment vindicates the previous purchases. Depending on your state of mind you have apparent motivation for favoring one over the other.

Quote:
I buy different DAC's just for my pleasure of hearing the differences.

And that is a possible explanation for you being biased towards perceiving that DACs sound different. Thank you for admitting so clearly to your biases! ;-)
Quote:
I agree that many sound similar at first, but using my favorite songs selection and concentrating only on some instruments, I can hear differences. And the players/DAC's that "loose", end up in my garage. That's all.

Sighted evaluations, right? Inadequate bias controls, right? Your flawed defense of the proposition that you have no biases gives weight to our arguments.

The idea that humans are inherently too biased to compare things that tend to sound and measure well beyond the known human thresholds of hearing without doing tests with effective bias controls is a scientific fact. That is, it is a hypothesis that has survived numerous tests by a variety of independent experimenters and is generally accepted by most relevant professional organizations that publish peer-reviewed journals.
post #79 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

OK, It's your personal equipment that you claim is superior and it is your ears that you seem to be claiming to be superior. There's a common thread here, can you see it? ;-)
Maybe is a disconnect here. Reading what I said I understand the following: I test MY equipment versus MY equipment. I don't claim that my equipment is better than others. I have poor and good DAC's/CD/DVD/SACD, fitted with almost all the "famous" chips used in past and in present.
That's why I think there is no subconscious desire to found one better than another. If you own ten cars, and you need to find witch has the lowest gas mileage, or the fastest quarter-mile time, you have no incentive to lie. Especially when the first reaction is "I can't believe what I am hearing, that chip should sound worse", or "I can't believe this, the DSD should sound better than the CD but it doesn't".

Also, level matching is overrated. You do that when you hear first time a song. When you use the same song 1000 times, it doesn't matter if you are at 0.1dB or at 3dB matching. If I turn the level down 3dB, I don't hear the music sounding worse. Maybe if I listen to a song that I never heard it would matter, I don't know... Again that "level matching" goes back the listener qualifications comments that I posted above.

All those "averaged" tests can show only that - average population hearing performance. It mean nothing for "the best" 10-20% of people who really trained to hear better.
It's like saying that Stephan Hawking cannot solve his physics equations just because "average" Joe can't.

PS: For ones that cannot grasp that: If I look at a page written in a foreign language (let's say German or Romanian) I see it and notice details (wrong spelling, wrong grammar) that a person that knows only English cannot see. We both have the same receptor performance (eyesight 20-20), but our brains are "trained" different and can extract different amounts of information from that sensorial input.
Same for "masking sounds". Those curves work for an average un-trained "ear/brain". If you care to train the brain, then those "masking" effects will change. mp3's that sounded OK originally, will sound worse when compared with lossless sources. DAC's that sound "the same" for "average" Joe, start to show minute differences for somebody that cares to educate/train his brain.
Edited by SoNic67 - 8/5/13 at 6:59am
post #80 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

OK, It's your personal equipment that you claim is superior and it is your ears that you seem to be claiming to be superior. There's a common thread here, can you see it? ;-)

Maybe is a disconnect here

Yes, your post appears to be missing the points I made. Your post is full of misrepresentation of posts I recently made to this thread (detailed below). Please cease and desist!
Quote:
. Reading what I said I understand the following: I test MY equipment versus MY equipment. I don't claim that my equipment is better than others.

Doesn't matter because of the relationships among your equipment that I established and that you have not addressed.
Quote:
I have poor and good DAC's/CD/DVD/SACD, fitted with almost all the "famous" chips used in past and in present.

Given that we found that we and others found CD players were difficult or impossible to hear differences among back in the 1980s

Pohlmann, Ken C., "6 Top CD Players: Can You Hear the Difference?", Stereo Review, pp.76-84 (December 1988)

Pohlmann, Ken C., "The New CD Players, Can You Hear the Difference?", Stereo Review, pp.60-67 (October 1990)

Masters, Ian G. and Clark, D. L., "Do All CD Players Sound the Same?", Stereo Review, pp.50-57 (January 1986)

The age of the chips in the players should be irrelevant.
Quote:
That's why I think there is no subconscious desire to found one better than another.

Your thoughts in this matter appear to be misinformed. Reliable evidence has been presented to you and you seem to want to deny it. As they say "Denial isn't just a river in Egypt".
Quote:
If you own ten cars, and you need to find witch has the lowest gas mileage, or the fastest quarter-mile time, you have no incentive to lie.

However, if you are at all aware of how these claims are tested, you don't settle the matter by subjective means. You don't drive the cars around town on successive days and give your opinion based on just your naive perceptions. You settle the speed issue with a stopwatch. You settle the gas economy question with a standardized course and measurements of actual fuel used.
Quote:
Especially when the first reaction is "I can't believe what I am hearing, that chip should sound worse", or "I can't believe this, the DSD should sound better than the CD but it doesn't".

Evidence gathered by unreliable means does not become more reliable just because it matches up with evidence gathered by reliable means. Gather data using unreliable means and its bad data no matter what it is.
Quote:
Also, level matching is overrated. You do that when you hear first time a song. When you use the same song 1000 times, it doesn't matter if you are at 0.1dB or at 3dB matching. If I turn the level down 3dB, I don't hear the music sounding worse. Maybe if I listen to a song that I never heard it would matter, I don't know... Again that "level matching" goes back the listener qualifications comments that I posted above.

The level matching issue is so easy to demonstrate in a simple practical demonstration, and requiring it is so generally well accepted that you are discrediting yourself in the eyes of anybody who is knowledgeable about subjective testing. Even the rabid golden ears like Robert Harley disagree with you!
Quote:
All those "averaged" tests can show only that - average population hearing performance.

More false denial. I clearly said that our listeners were hand picked, experienced audiophiles and engineers. I clearly said that we looked at both averaged and individual scores.
Quote:
It mean nothing for "the best" 10-20% of people who really trained to hear better.

The above is a flagrant misrepresentaion of information that has been presented here recently:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1445724/to-dac-or-not-to-dac/60#post_23592507

"many of the DBTs I've been involved with used a listening panel composed of many experienced audiophiles. We looked at their individual scores to see if there were any golden ears, and we summed them together to get a more sensitive test with more trials."

Please stop misrepresenting my posts!
post #81 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

Maybe is a disconnect here. Reading what I said I understand the following: I test MY equipment versus MY equipment. I don't claim that my equipment is better than others. I have poor and good DAC's/CD/DVD/SACD, fitted with almost all the "famous" chips used in past and in present.
That's why I think there is no subconscious desire to found one better than another. If you own ten cars, and you need to find witch has the lowest gas mileage, or the fastest quarter-mile time, you have no incentive to lie. Especially when the first reaction is "I can't believe what I am hearing, that chip should sound worse", or "I can't believe this, the DSD should sound better than the CD but it doesn't".

Also, level matching is overrated. You do that when you hear first time a song. When you use the same song 1000 times, it doesn't matter if you are at 0.1dB or at 3dB matching. If I turn the level down 3dB, I don't hear the music sounding worse. Maybe if I listen to a song that I never heard it would matter, I don't know... Again that "level matching" goes back the listener qualifications comments that I posted above.

All those "averaged" tests can show only that - average population hearing performance. It mean nothing for "the best" 10-20% of people who really trained to hear better.
It's like saying that Stephan Hawking cannot solve his physics equations just because "average" Joe can't.

PS: For ones that cannot grasp that: If I look at a page written in a foreign language (let's say German or Romanian) I see it and notice details (wrong spelling, wrong grammar) that a person that knows only English cannot see. We both have the same receptor performance (eyesight 20-20), but our brains are "trained" different and can extract different amounts of information from that sensorial input.
Same for "masking sounds". Those curves work for an average un-trained "ear/brain". If you care to train the brain, then those "masking" effects will change. mp3's that sounded OK originally, will sound worse when compared with lossless sources. DAC's that sound "the same" for "average" Joe, start to show minute differences for somebody that cares to educate/train his brain.
eek.gif
You need to study up on acoustics.
post #82 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

"many of the DBTs I've been involved with used a listening panel composed of many experienced audiophiles. We looked at their individual scores to see if there were any golden ears, and we summed them together to get a more sensitive test with more trials."
How old where they? 40's? My audio perception decreased, but my son's is still OK. Should I say that he cannot possible hear better just because I don't?

As I said, sample/average testing is like testing a class of HS kids at AP Calculus and when they get 2's (and because some of them are part of the Math Club), concluding that nobody can do better. Regardless of what HS are you testing. or college. Or teachers. Ever.
Probably there are money involved here, that's why you are so upset... I don't care really. This is a public forum, in USA we still have the right to our opinions. For now...
Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

eek.gif
You need to study up on acoustics.
From who? You?
BTW, what credentials do you have? College? What major?
post #83 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

But this is a public forum, in USA we still have the right to our opinions. For now...
But not all opinions are the same. There are informed opinions and then there are uninformed opinions like your post I quoted above.
Quote:
From who? You?
The info already exists on this forum, on this very thread.
post #84 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

"many of the DBTs I've been involved with used a listening panel composed of many experienced audiophiles. We looked at their individual scores to see if there were any golden ears, and we summed them together to get a more sensitive test with more trials."
How old where they? 40's?
Youngest were in their 20s. I was in my early-mid 30s at the time, and I was older than most.
Quote:
My audio perception decreased, but my son's is still OK. Should I say that he cannot possible hear better just because I don't?

IME people who haven't done DBTs have no idea of how well they hear differences because they've never done a listening test that they can objectively fail.
Quote:
BTW, what credentials do you have? College? What major?

Bachelor's degree and all but the last class for a Masters, in electrical engineering. The school I attended still does not give out anything but a degree in Engineering, so I can't technically say that I'm an EE. But I took all the classes most take in schools that grant a formal EE. and then some. I have over 40 years of experience in various engineering and IT positions.
post #85 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by beaveav View Post

I buy different DAC's just for my pleasure of hearing the differences. .

Sounds pretty strange to me! ;-)

Since I long ago determined the facts related to that, for the last 10 or more years I've only bought as many DACs as I needed to enjoy music, which turned out to be zero since just about everything worthwhile comes with any necessary DACs or ADCs built in.
post #86 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

"many of the DBTs I've been involved with used a listening panel composed of many experienced audiophiles. We looked at their individual scores to see if there were any golden ears, and we summed them together to get a more sensitive test with more trials."
How old where they? 40's?
Youngest were in their 20s. I was in my early-mid 30s at the time, and I was older than most.
Quote:
My audio perception decreased, but my son's is still OK. Should I say that he cannot possible hear better just because I don't?

IME people who haven't done DBTs have no idea of how well they hear differences because they've never done a listening test that they can objectively fail.
Quote:
BTW, what credentials do you have? College? What major?

Bachelor's degree and all but the last class for a Masters, in electrical engineering. The school I attended still does not give out anything but a degree in Engineering, so I can't technically say that I'm an EE. But I took all the classes most take in schools that grant a formal EE. and then some. I have over 40 years of experience in various engineering and IT positions.

What are your credentials?
post #87 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

OK, It's your personal equipment that you claim is superior and it is your ears that you seem to be claiming to be superior. There's a common thread here, can you see it? ;-)
Maybe is a disconnect here. Reading what I said I understand the following: I test MY equipment versus MY equipment. I don't claim that my equipment is better than others. I have poor and good DAC's/CD/DVD/SACD, fitted with almost all the "famous" chips used in past and in present.
That's why I think there is no subconscious desire to found one better than another. If you own ten cars, and you need to find witch has the lowest gas mileage, or the fastest quarter-mile time, you have no incentive to lie. Especially when the first reaction is "I can't believe what I am hearing, that chip should sound worse", or "I can't believe this, the DSD should sound better than the CD but it doesn't".

Also, level matching is overrated. You do that when you hear first time a song. When you use the same song 1000 times, it doesn't matter if you are at 0.1dB or at 3dB matching. If I turn the level down 3dB, I don't hear the music sounding worse. Maybe if I listen to a song that I never heard it would matter, I don't know... Again that "level matching" goes back the listener qualifications comments that I posted above.

All those "averaged" tests can show only that - average population hearing performance. It mean nothing for "the best" 10-20% of people who really trained to hear better.
It's like saying that Stephan Hawking cannot solve his physics equations just because "average" Joe can't.

PS: For ones that cannot grasp that: If I look at a page written in a foreign language (let's say German or Romanian) I see it and notice details (wrong spelling, wrong grammar) that a person that knows only English cannot see. We both have the same receptor performance (eyesight 20-20), but our brains are "trained" different and can extract different amounts of information from that sensorial input.
Same for "masking sounds". Those curves work for an average un-trained "ear/brain". If you care to train the brain, then those "masking" effects will change. mp3's that sounded OK originally, will sound worse when compared with lossless sources. DAC's that sound "the same" for "average" Joe, start to show minute differences for somebody that cares to educate/train his brain.

 

Everything you say makes sense. But only to those who fail to understand, or fail to apply, the science behind audio and acoustics. To deny the level matching criterion is ludicrous. Even people who don't really subscribe to the whole blind ABX test schtick accept the impact of almost imperceptible level differences. You sound like someone who puts forward a perfectly formed view as to why the earth is flat and the sun revolves around it. I mean, it's obvious isn't it?  I can see it with my own senses. 

post #88 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Everything you say makes sense. But only to those who fail to understand, or fail to apply, the science behind audio and acoustics. To deny the level matching criterion is ludicrous. Even people who don't really subscribe to the whole blind ABX test schtick accept the impact of almost imperceptible level differences. You sound like someone who puts forward a perfectly formed view as to why the earth is flat and the sun revolves around it. I mean, it's obvious isn't it?  I can see it with my own senses. 
post #89 of 181
Quote:
Also, level matching is overrated. You do that when you hear first time a song. When you use the same song 1000 times, it doesn't matter if you are at 0.1dB or at 3dB matching. If I turn the level down 3dB, I don't hear the music sounding worse. Maybe if I listen to a song that I never heard it would matter, I don't know... Again that "level matching" goes back the listener qualifications comments that I posted above.

On the contrary, level matching is so critical that a listening test is useless without it. We had 10 experienced audiophiles in our group listening to their own gear against other people's gear and their own recordings. People preferred a slightly louder presentation 100% of the time. It was amazing in fact. 3db was enough to do the job. We level matched by measuring the voltage across a speaker emitting white noise.
post #90 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Balthazar2k4 View Post

You sir are a very obtuse individual. This circular discussion is going nowhere. I have explained my testing through my posts that followed my initial and have nothing further to say on the matter. Good day.

One down, 500,000 to go.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › CD Players & Dedicated Music Transports › To DAC or not to DAC