[scottiebabie]

let take a gander at this using the auto analogy as stated...
 
because we're comparing engines & not tires? granted better tires will let both cars perform better but since both cars have the same tire, then its logical to assume other factors will determine which is the better car. lesser quality tires does not negate the tests because OP is trying to determine engine performance & all things (including tires in this case) being equal, the better engine will still be better engine & will perform as such.
 
dont know if the auto analogy fits but this is how i would view it. btw its not $50 tires but more like $500 tires compared with $2000 tires so even though its "cheaper" tires, its still good performance tires. atleast thats how i see it.
 
Quote:

Can you explain why it doesn't make sense to test for any performance differences between a 911Turbo and 911GT on a track when you are using some $50 tires you got from Bell Tire?   Can you think of atleat 1 reason why this is stupid?

Quote:

 

 

 

[Mad Lust Envy]

Probably because the difference in sound from amp to amp is a lot more subtle than the performance from tire to tire?

Very bad comparison.

 

[kite7]

Quote:

Can you explain why it doesn't make sense to test for any performance differences between a 911Turbo and 911GT on a track when you are using some $50 tires you got from Bell Tire?   Can you think of atleat 1 reason why this is stupid?

I still think the car with the more powerful engine would win due to acceleration and top speed because on tracks there are straights despite being limited by not so top grade tires. You have to consider that the OP is not using a $50 DAC, he is using what most people would consider a good or decent $500 DAC and is not garbage. I doubt a $500 set of tires perform considerably worse than a $2000 set of tires such that the performance of both cars are limited by the $500 set of tires so much that they perform the same so unless you've driven both cars and can elaborate more, I don't this this car analogy is getting us anywhere from the question I asked.
 
I doubt the OP is significantly handicapping the performance of his amps with his DAC because I'm sure you've already heard in first year calculus math courses regarding approximations that close enough is good enough. Why should some people be surprised at many amps sound the same? Some people always say that the differences between amps or dacs are "disguised" through A/B switching and that time and familiarity reveal more micro differences; though I personally don't believe this and think it's just some excuse of buyer justification to buy more expensive equipment but I do realize that this is a hobby.

 

[chesebert]

I don't think the car analogy is getting through, let's try a computer one (perhaps that's closer to everyone's actual experience). Take a Core i5 and i7 and put a Geforce 3 TI500 in both and you can tell me whether you can tell any difference when you play your favoriate game on your 24in screen at native resolution. Yeah, using a $400 entry level DAC with top of the line amp and headphone is just like that. Do you think you can tell the difference between the slowest i5 and the fastest i7 at 1080p? Or would you rather say "the difference between the slowest i5 and the fastet i7 is subtle" because I can't tell the difference when I play my game.

 

[Armaegis]

Y'know, people can pick and choose analogies until they find one that suits their point of view...

 

[Zida]

Can we just forget about the analogies? They work well for explaining a concept we all understand, but you can't use them to directly prove your point since, unfortunately, headphones don't double as racing cars and the math sciences behind their performances are mostly unrelated.

P.S. your last analogy was fundamentally flawed. It would be like comparing performances between a top of the line CPU with say, a CPU clocked maybe 1ghz slower (assuming more expensive DACs are actually better, I myself don't know this to be true) with various different high end GPUs being subbed in and out. It's a 4-way comparison. Remember, we're not arguing that a better CPU doesn't make a difference, we're arguing that a better GPU should yield similar results despite having a *slightly* lesser CPU.
edit: again, above analogy is still meaningless in this case, I just felt like fixing it up to a point where it would at least fit the concept of this argument

 

[chesebert]

I think you are confused. the $400 DAC is the bottleneck in OP's system, just as the crappy GPU is the bottleneck in a modern gaming PC, just as the $50 tire is the bottleneck in a super car. That means no matter how great the rest of the system is, that being the SOTA headphone/amp, the newest quadcore, or the latest engine, the resulting experience, whether aural, visual or physical, will be "bottlenecked", notwithstanding some minor improvements. 
 
Feel like I am beating a dead horse here.
 
Honest Question: Do people who read this thread for actual comparisions honest think an entry level $400 DAC is good enough to test a SOTA audio system?
 
 
 
 
 


 
Quote:

Can we just forget about the analogies? They work well for explaining a concept we all understand, but you can't use them to directly prove your point since, unfortunately, headphones don't double as racing cars and the math sciences behind their performances are mostly unrelated.

P.S. your last analogy was fundamentally flawed. It would be like comparing performances between a top of the line CPU with say, a CPU clocked maybe 1ghz slower (assuming more expensive DACs are actually better, I myself don't know this to be true) with various different high end GPUs being subbed in and out. It's a 4-way comparison. Remember, we're not arguing that a better CPU doesn't make a difference, we're arguing that a better GPU should yield similar results despite having a *slightly* lesser CPU.
edit: again, above analogy is still meaningless in this case, I just felt like fixing it up to a point where it would at least fit the concept of this argument

 

[Armaegis]

I wish I had enough disposable income to consider $400 "entry level".

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

let take a gander at this using the auto analogy as stated...
 
because we're comparing engines & not tires? granted better tires will let both cars perform better but since both cars have the same tire, then its logical to assume other factors will determine which is the better car. lesser quality tires does not negate the tests because OP is trying to determine engine performance & all things (including tires in this case) being equal, the better engine will still be better engine & will perform as such.
 
dont know if the auto analogy fits but this is how i would view it. btw its not $50 tires but more like $500 tires compared with $2000 tires so even though its "cheaper" tires, its still good performance tires. atleast thats how i see it.

Ahem...  The cheesy tires will ABSOLUTELY PREVENT you from ever seeing what either car is capable of and you'll end up with not having the faintest idea of what either car has to offer.  You have no idea how critical the tires are on a high performance vehicle.  So it is, with the weakest link in one's audio chain.  One thing to remember with electronics, more than ever, price does not always equate to performance.
 

 

[scottiebabie]

Quote:

Ahem...  The cheesy tires will ABSOLUTELY PREVENT you from ever seeing what either car is capable of and you'll end up with not having the faintest idea of what either car has to offer.  You have no idea how critical the tires are on a high performance vehicle.  So it is, with the weakest link in one's audio chain.  One thing to remember with electronics, more than ever, price does not always equate to performance.
 

yup there can be no argument that better tires = better traction & better traction is everything for an automobile (idiots & dancing monkeys posing as drivers discounted). however let me present the argument that since both vehicles have the same tires, the better vehicle will still be shown to be better vehicle, again all things being equal ofcos. the smoother engine with the more linear power delivery will have better traction (however slight). the vehicle with the more optimum weight distribution ie.balanced, will again have better traction. the vehicle with the better engine management electronics will have better traction. & so on & so on.
 
i beg to argue that since both vehicles have the same tires, the critical bottleneck will not be the tires but other factors in determining differences or even superiority. in the CPU vs GPU analogy, similar logical arguments can be made that if both rigs have the same graphics GPU, then the rig with the superior CPU will make the difference. & so on & so on.
 
in absolute terms, its correct to assume that the weakest link will be the largest limiting factor for performance. however for comparison purposes, with both items having the exact weakest link, other factors will be the determinant.
 
perhaps similar logical arguments can be applied to this thread for purposes of amp comparisons. just sayin

 

[sphinxvc]

Okay, the only indisputable thing being proved is that analogies are a terrible way to go about proving much in an argument.  
 
Chesebert, this thread is far from "worthless."  I don't think you are convincing anyone otherwise.  If you can't figure out how these A/B comparisons might be useful, particularily to those of us with limited disposable income, then I suggest you take some time to think harder.  
 
And for the record, you are beating a dead horse, Currawong already having made the same point as you.  
 
Let's not derail this thread with more pointless analogies.

 

[Paganini Alfredo]

Even IF the amps are being limited to the "inferior" source, the results are still incredibly useful to those who can only have a DAC at that price point. It can also give them some peace of mind that they're not missing much with statospheric costing amplification.
 
Also, someone correct me if I'm wrong, when you get to this point of diminishing returns with gear isn't it more about finding your preferred preference of sound rather than finding "better" gear?

 

[atothex]

 
Quote:

Also, someone correct me if I'm wrong, when you get to this point of diminishing returns with gear isn't it more about finding your preferred preference of sound rather than finding "better" gear?

Amps can scale quite a bit with part quality and cost. That's kinda the whole thing with the SET crowd.

 

[Petyot]

Quote:

Even IF the amps are being limited to the "inferior" source, the results are still incredibly useful to those who can only have a DAC at that price point. It can also give them some peace of mind that they're not missing much with statospheric costing amplification.
 
Also, someone correct me if I'm wrong, when you get to this point of diminishing returns with gear isn't it more about finding your preferred preference of sound rather than finding "better" gear?

Well put. I agree with you on both point.
 
 

 

[Mdraluck23]

Quote:

 
Feel like I am beating a dead horse here.
 
Honest Question: Do people who read this thread for actual comparisions honest think an entry level $400 DAC is good enough to test a SOTA audio system?

Rarely on this forum have I experienced "audiophile snobbery" but I would imagine that is near as close as it comes.  It depends on the DAC. a $400 DAC could sound better than my $1500 DAC I just made out of some string, a USB cable and an empty bag of Doritos. Value is just as subjective as the total sound. This review was NOT worthless.