Folks -- if this post does not get deleted -- I would gather that from reading the majority of verbiage in the forum, that my life has been a complete exercise in futility since I built the first D/A converter ever in 1983 as well as dozens since then. Or perhaps I am unaware that I delude myself into believing that I am an audio hardware huckster lurking in these forums and the marketplace to wrest the last money from hapless audiophiles.
What I can tell you is that I know what I like with certainty. What I also know is that what anyone else may like or not like is absolutely none of my business. Even more so, I have no right to nor ever tell anyone else what is right or wrong for them, whether it be based on what I think is science, opinion, or fairy tale.
I choose to build a variety of digital audio products that I like, and let a free market decide. The funny thing is - the intervening years have been enjoyable and fun beyond belief. This is because if I want enjoy a hobby, I cannot take myself too seriously. I have to be able to smile. I am too old not to.
Elsewhere posted but very germain: I have a great idea for some – they could blindfold themselves, add earplugs and experiment on making love to various consenting women (or women audiophiles to consenting men – like it would be a problem to find them). They could switch midstroke, to see if they could tell them apart. Those who have never had fun in the process could start getting laid science forums to prove that it is impossible to tell any difference between partners. Those of us who love, appreciate, enjoy, and treat our lovers well would end up with the best. To say nothing of enjoying life.
can't say I disagree, but we don't need science or such a topic to experience love and emotions. I go with the premise that we're not here discussing if we like something(there are enough appreciation threads for that). but instead that a topic like this one has for purpose to, if possible, try and find out more about what is really happening. both in the DAC and at our ears.
someone like you has been testing more things that I could probably think about, you have found some answers and have your ideas about what is good for each purpose or what you prefer.
but to a random guy like myself with only the surface of the theoretical understanding and so little ways to test something myself, what I'm looking for online isn't audio art or audio love(I have Marvin Gaye and Stevie Wonder for that ^_^), but understanding and factual information. I don't think I'm dumber than the next guy, if I listen to something and really enjoy it I will want to bring it home, that's not why I want to know. I want to know because I want to know. a genuine desire not to be an ignorant fool about everything. you could say it's my second audio hobby after listening to good music.
I've read about some audio product designers who thought it was silly not to use negative feedback, given all the pros vs little cons. then I've seen some other but just as serious guys going beyond themselves to try and not use that feedback, thinking it was so bad they would rather lose good FR linearity and low impedance.
I've read about how jitter is of little audible consequences in most modern products, about listening tests agreeing to that idea, about most things being minimum phase. then I read about the Ayre guy asking the UN to intervene and put an end to the evil time smearing and phase shifting trying to murder the ears of the innocent children.
I've seen guys cry over the horrible ringing of an IIR low pass filter for years, from guys even older than I am who couldn't ear a 16khz signal if their life depended on it.
I've seen some R2R marketing with all the stupid staircases conspiracies, saying how pulse modulation was an all noisy process and should be avoided like a plague. and I thought it made sense. then I've seen the ESS guy(martin something?) explain how they had a 5th order modulator and explain how noise shaping helped reach practical noise levels that are very much good enough to be considered inaudible.
I've seen some pro R2R say how the signal is of better fidelity, then I see some other guy saying that people prefer R2R because they like some noise modulation that that is in fact not a sound that was in the original record.
I've see so many people tell me how the soundstage was better in R2R, then maybe a month ago, Bob Katz said something about how he felt like the soundstage in R2R was slightly narrower.
and I was back to square one(and that's ust a few stuff I got on the top of my head, it's much worse in reality). are all those guys living in parallel universes? I'm the first to understand that things aren't all black and white and most stuff can be true under given conditions. most stuff in electronic are a game of give and take after all. I'm cool with that. but having to swim in this audio world where claims contradict each other all day long, saying that I should trust my feelings and enjoy the good stuff, really isn't helping me much when what I desire is a little knowledge I could trust.
when I'm learning about optical stuff and find some information, I don't have to run all over the web to see if someone else is saying the opposite. only audio has that kind of BS going on. if it was theoretical physics I might understand, but we're talking about audio here, not string theory. so why all the mystery and all the cults about everything and the exact opposite of it? are both R2R and sigma delta good enough to get audible transparency? does audible transparency exist given how crappy our headphones are? what are the drawbacks of using either of those techs?
those are but a few of the stuff I wish to learn in such a topic.
