Nowadays, it seems the claims are made first, and then the evidence is found - and there you can trust people to always find some evidence...
That's not what we tend to see in this forum. What we see here are nonsense claims which contradict proven and/or well established science, that are virtually always based on some false marketing or on assumptions derived from it AND you can trust these people to never find some reliable evidence, because there isn't any! They'll either simply ignore the request for reliable evidence, repeat the most unreliable evidence (marketing or anecdotes) or quote actual, real evidence that's inapplicable/out of context. Here's an example:
[1] In the absence of well-defined specs, to which manufacturers will feel to oblige (and they rather do their best to be distinct and special, understandably), [2] I can only see "transparency" useful as a purely hypothetical concept.
[3] If, for instance, I found some USB DAC more vivid (clear, etc) than a simple Apple one - [3a] and it is as clear as scotch vs. vodka - [3b] how would I find even better one (for me) based on specs?
1. What absence of well defined specs? The "specs" were proven and published in 1948 by Claude Shannon and could hardly be more well demonstrated because the entire digital age is based on them, not just digital audio.
2. You can "see" what you want to see of course, but this is the sound science forum. What one person or even a community "sees", knows or understands is irrelevant. What's relevant is the reliable evidence and the proven/demonstrated facts. We have a relatively simple test that easily and perfectly measures "transparency". The Null Test "compares" two audio signals, for example the input and output signals of a piece or chain of equipment, and results in a difference file; an audio signal comprised of ONLY the difference between the two signals. If this difference file contains nothing, then we have proven that the tested signals are identical and the difference is obviously therefore perfectly transparent. If we have a difference file that does contain something but it peaks below the threshold of audibility, then the difference is audibly transparent and if the difference file peaks above the threshold of audibility then it may (or may not) be audibly transparent. This is NOT a purely "hypothetical concept", it's not even just a theoretical concept, it a practical objective test that's been around for 80 or so years, that's used daily by countless engineers.
3. AFAIK, you can't find "
some USB DAC more vivid than a simple Apple one" because all the Apple ones I've seen are audibly transparent, so it doesn't get any more clear or vivid than that.
3a. That's either a placebo effect or there is something other than DA Conversion being applied, say compression for example.
3b. If it's placebo, then a good place for you to start would be with a DAC that costs a lot more and/or has a very good reputation in the audiophile community. But that might not cause the placebo effect you desire because no one knows your particular balance of biases or exactly how they'll affect your perception. If it's something other than the DA Conversion, then you need to look at features/specs for say compressors or whatever other sort of processing is causing the audible difference.
For instance, if we record a violin up close with all the delicate bowing details - attack and release - would it be "transparent" or, OK, acceptable to bigshot, who optimized his listening preferences to the reproduction of far-field large-hall recordings.
It would not be perfectly transparent, it might not even be entirely audibly transparent but that has nothing to do with the ADC or DAC process and everything to do with the choice of microphone, it's orientation and position. Again, mic's have to obey the laws of physical motion (of their diaphragm, and coil in the case of dynamic mics).
Actually, most, if not all, of my sound reproduction quest is centered around being able to reproduce (or at least imitate) violin (and chamber music in general) up close. (I am fortunate to have violin/viola players in a house, so that is my reference sound).
That is not the quest of commercially recorded music. "Up close" there are various mechanical extraneous noises; finger slides, bow scratches, the rustle of the musician's clothes, their breathing, etc., none of which will be heard or are intended to be heard by an audience at any reasonable listening distance, plus, there would be a relative reduction of the room/performance space acoustics. Given a hypothetically perfect mic, 16/44 would still be able to capture everything that you would hear, even "up close".
Because the change of tubes affect the signal in a way that can’t be approached all the way by computers or SS amps.
That's already been refuted, why just repeat false facts that have ALREADY been refuted?
They are not actually objectively worse.....(though at times they test that way) hence still in use the the worlds top studios.
Yes they ARE "actually objectively worse" AND they ALWAYS measure that way. They are rarely in used in the worlds top studios and when they are, it is precisely because they are actually objectively worse (but subjectively better).
If they could replace them with a SS compressor or replace $9 thousand dollar tube microphones with SS they would.
They would and they have! All of the world's top commercial studios have and use plug-in compressors, they also have SS compressors and will get out their tube compressors if requested. Their $9k tube mics have also been replaced by quieter, more accurate mics, but again, can be requested. There are of course exceptions, some very good specialised commercial studios, those specialising in old rock genres or "country" for example, which maintain almost entirely analogue recording and mixing chains and typically have quite a lot of vintage gear but they're very rare these days. Plus of course there are countless home studios which are specialised for whatever the home user desires.
All any person using a tube for the line out of a DAC section or a tube compressor, or guitar effects unit is trying to do is find a tone. A tone is just simply a color of response.
Yes but a response is either coloured or it's transparent. If it's coloured then it is NOT "an even, correct and complete tone". Of course, the last thing an electric guitarist is after is "an even, correct and complete tone", the sound of an electric guitar is defined by multiple layers of various types of distortion. Of course, once all that distortion has been finely tuned according to the subjective choices of the guitarist then we want an "even, correct and complete" reproduction of those finely tuned subjective choices.
[1] I have already shown that TUBES are still in use. [2] I simply chose 2 of the worlds top studios and listed their equipment list. [3] They would change out the tube gear for SS gear if it was better or able to be emulated by software, but it can’t. Yes, SS gear is more stable and reliable.
1. Yes they are still in use but relatively rarely.
2. Most/All of the world's top studios have some tube gear in their inventory. They'll have a lot of stuff in their equipment list that they've collected over the years. Some of it was the best available at the time but has since been superseded and some of it was truly terrible even in it's own time but was purchased precisely because it was so terrible.
3. Again, they have changed out the tube gear for SS or software but they need to cater to a wide range of clients, old rockers and others looking for a bit of nostalgia for example.
[1] “Is there a difference in DACs” That’s the simple question and I’m showing there are many many different sounding DACs. [2] That it’s the amplifiers next to the DAC chip for the line out that make them different. [3] But somehow we have members in Sound Science that believe every amplifier in the world sounds exactly the same?
1. Yes, there is a difference in DACs but NO, you are NOT showing there are many many different sounding DACS, you are claiming that but "showing" no reliable evidence whatsoever! Filter-less NOS DACS introduce noise and distortion well above the threshold of audibility and can be differentiated in controlled tests but there are NOT many, many of them, probably fewer than 0.001% of DACs! And again, a faulty by design DAC
2. Then that's the amplifier and not the DAC.
3. Which members, I haven't seen a single one! The vast majority of amplifiers sound the same (given the correct load of course) but there are some rare, esoteric exceptions and I've not seen any member of SS dispute that.
[1] That if there is a slight gross departure from (what ever) flat is that it’s broken. [2] What I’m saying is there are all types of correct responses from an amp in the line level area.
1. Correct, an audible departure from a linear/flat response is effectively broken, with both amps and DACs. It's been possible for decades to make amps and DACs that are audibly transparent and at a relatively low price. So, if a DAC or amp manufacturer fails to achieve that relatively easy to achieve benchmark, then it's effectively broken/faulty.
2. We know what you're saying but it's false. Even your explanation of it has been self-contradictory, let alone the fact that it contradicts the science. Amplification is the act of increasing the power of a signal ... that's it, nothing more and nothing less! Therefore, by definition, there is only ONE correct output response: The same output signal as the input signal but with more power. So, there CANNOT be "all types of correct responses", there's either the correct response or something different to the correct response, which by definition is incorrect.
[1] This is just part of what makes them different. [2] I’m not even beginning to argue that different DAC brand chips make a difference. [3] Also the methodology in use to get the information to the DAC affects the end sound.
Is it USB to the DAC?
Is it Toslink RCA to the DAC?
Is it Toslink Optical to the DAC?
All that affects the sound. The way the digital signal gets to the DAC affects timing. We have noise and timing issues with USB, which are placated to a point with optical, or bypassing a computer all together and using USB file players before the DAC.
1. Again, all amps and DACs are different, that's unavoidable with analogue circuitry, what is relatively easily avoidable is those differences being above the threshold of audibility.
2. Again, wise move!
3. No, in the vast majority of cases it does not affect the sound because the differences are below the noise floor of the speakers/HPs. I have seen measurements of particularly poorly designed DACs that could affect the sound with extremely low noise floor HPs/Speakers but it would still be around the threshold of audibility and there's no excuse for such poor design when even very cheap DACs can avoid it.
[1] Absolutely not......brand new 2021 studios use extensive racks of brand new tube gear simply because they get a sound/tone out of it that you can’t get with SS, or computers. I’ll post some videos of newly built studios with brand new tube gear for ya, I just need to find the video. [2] Now you can say that they do it to impress customers maybe, but they choose to use it all the time. [3] So who knows, maybe they are trying to degrade there 2 million dollar sound? Lol
1. Hang on, you were talking about the world's top studios but then you give an example of what looks like a home studio.
2. Possibly, if they're using the studio just for themselves or for a tiny niche of clients, for example again, old rockers and others after the "sound" of the '50s/'60s.
3. Firstly, if he paid $2m for that, he's be badly "had"! And secondly, yes, of course, that's the whole point! A top class electric guitarist for example will typically go into a world class $10m studio with $10k or more worth of equipment deliberately chosen to degrade/distort the sound. Didn't you know this?
G