So a rich person can safely buy the most expensive dac in the shop knowing it's going to sound superior to everything else without even testing it in their system?
That rational goes against everything I've learnt in the science forums.
It's simple, if the measurements are something like voltage, frequency, some specific type of distortion or something as silly as time, then it's unreliable, as none of those things are real music.
But there is one thing we can always trust in this world, the power of money! For that, we have very reliable graphs such as this one I made after gathering all the data from over 160 research papers in 34 seconds. I swear on my personal experience in declaring stuff true when I want, that it's legit, just like audiophile sellers and reviewers do:
Units are irrelevant when the results are this clear. So we can jump right into interpreting the unscaled data like real experts.
As you can see, with no money you get nothing, then with little money you rapidly get an exponential improvement in sound(foremost left of the graph).
After that there is an area with pretty wide range of prices(called Low Objective Linearity) where it's much harder to tell what's going on or to properly correlate sound and money. Sometimes the cheaper product has more goodness, sometimes not, it's the kind of chaos better left for the poor to figure out.
But if you spend a lot more money to get over the LOL area, you finally reach the point where it gets consistently better again. It's not me saying it, it's the graph I made up, so it has to be true.
Were excluded from this report, the brands that simply add zeroes to their subpar products, place them into massive heavy casing and make up stories about non-liable, non-quantified subjective benefits from super exclusive tech such as stickers, paint or laser removed codes to hide generic component references. Those cases were considered irrelevant outliers because as everybody knows if there's one place in the world of high-tech where all the liars and pixie dust sellers go straight to jail, it's the audiophile market.
PS, if anyone needs high level photoshop qualifications for a project, contact me. As you can see, I know my stuff and always deliver professional level of work.
I'll leave the details how DACs work to the experts, who will eventually comment on the video, too. This is typical audiophile talk, lots of technical chatter without any substance. It's just advertising their own "competence". There are no ultrasonic noise issues in DS DACs, otherwise the industry would have solved these issues already.
It also doesn't answer the question how the "quality" of a recording would relate to the "quality" of a DAC. You claimed it would take a good DAC for bad recordings to sound good. Best you post some examples what you hear, good and bad, and what audio equipment you use to determine that.
I also didn't see anything clearly wrong in his technical description of DAC designs. Obviously, at no point in the video does he even come close to addressing REX's concept. But how could it happen when it's about knowledge that science will only be able to discover in the future? Don't put him in a difficult situation, having to come out as a time traveler, that's not cool, man.
The concept of good dac improving bad recordings reminded me of a comedic bit from at least 20 years ago where a guy shows his new CD player to his friend and explains that it can intelligently improve the quality of the music being played. So the other guy puts on a CD of some average pop singer who's only famous because girls find him hot. No sound comes out.
Then first guy goes, "see, it's working perfectly".
Can you imagine, I made many posts about blind testing in here with no trouble from the authorities despite explicit laws against it, and I'm going to go down for a trolol post. It's like Capone falling for tax fraud.
