[T 1000]

If he's bait and you keep replying to him, he's already got his fish.

You persistently treat me like a troll, you do that as soon as someone tells you that you are wrong

 

[The Jester]

Because it's all about waves, several small events can have a cumulative impact. That seems perfectly possible to me. But I don't like fishing for rationals that support unproved beliefs born out of bad testing.
TBH, I also don't see how Nyquist demonstrates anything about a lack of audible differences between 2 DACs. All that stuff is backward thinking to me. Let's have someone properly demonstrate his ability to tell 2 specific DACs apart, and then we can look into why without feeling like we're wasting our time. Wouldn't things make more sense in that order?

Sorry if deciding to say that stuff in reply to your post seems like targeting you in particular. it's actually one of the reasonable posts, which is why I got interested.



If he's bait and you keep replying to him, he's already got his fish.

Isn’t that the driving force behind science, asking questions and looking for answers ? …

 

[T 1000]

My point in our conversations is that you don't have auditory experiences with hmm..., a lot of things. And while I and many others are witnesses of different influences and diversity, you state - it's impossible, books say otherwise, prove it with measurements, you don't accept experiences 99 % of those who are witnesses.
This is where you should be giving positive advice to people on how to improve their audio experiences, instead you are convincing people that a $500 system is all that is needed, the rest is a waste of money
If I were a beginner, I would probably be carried away by your use of technical terms, and I would think that you must be right, when you know so much

 

[bigshot]

If the “default one” is the original from close to 40 years ago it’s probably not the best choice as filter algorithms have slowly improved, along with the algorithms used with noise shapers and over sampling, once it gets to that level though any differences can be subtle and dependant on the rest of the audio chain,

The default one is the one that is built into the DAC- like the one in my iPhone, AVR or blu-ray player, none of which offer options for specialty filtering. I doubt current manufacturers use 40 year old algorithms.

it's fun to search out exceptions to the rule and mention them in internet threads to play Devil's advocate, but you would have to search long and hard to find current home audio DACs, amps or players that aren't audibly transparent. You'd have to create some sort of pathological impedance mismatch, flip a switch to an esoteric filter setting, use a DAC that uses early 80s NOS technology, or choose something that uses tubes for deliberate distortion for that. I try to mention all these unlikely scenarios every time I post, and I'm sure just now I've forgotten to mention a one in a million exception, but exceptions still keep getting trotted out, even though we're talking about typical home audio gear that is designed from the ground up to be audibly transparent if used properly.

A DAC should be audibly transparent. If it isn't, it isn't performing to digital spec. I sure wouldn't own one like that. Would you?

In other subjects, the error of the day is the bandwagon fallacy. Edit: add straw man to that.

 

[The Jester]

You’re the one talking in the context of typical home audio gear in the sound science forum section of Head-fi, which discusses everything from the typical home audio gear to the highest end of exotic equipment where headphones costing $2k and more and commensurate headphone amps are relatively commonplace,
If you want to discuss things in limited terms (and budget ) that’s fine, others may want to discuss things that to you are ridiculously expensive or overly “nit picking” then why join in ?
Saying that a DAC in a phone is as “audibly transparent” as a dedicated desktop DAC seems like “troll fishing” but hopefully I’m mistaken,
A headphone system I’ve had for almost 30 years could easily demonstrate an audible difference, a driver amp that can be fed from RCA input leads or a 3.5mm phono plug to RCA outlets powering electrostatic headphones,
If this were an old fashioned “Hifi club” you’d already have listened and probably agreed, sadly on an internet forum everything is all “only words” .

 

[bigshot]

I’m trying to help real people who want to put together a high fidelity sound system using scientific principles. I’m not here to don a white lab coat and pretend to be a scientist. Science isn’t just for scientists. It’s for real people too.

Here is my problem with exceptions… because so many people see posting in sound science as a contest to see who the biggest super genius in the group is, the exceptions get mentioned way out of proportion to their likelihood of actually being the case. And they’re always trotted out to try to cut me off at the knees when there’s a gold plated idiot saying things that are much more deserving of being corrected. In this case we have a dolt who clearly is posting anti-scientific, pro-subjective logical fallacies. Why does the devil’s advocate focus on esoteric filters that only exist an a tiny proportion of DACs when you have a pile of boloney as tall as the Taj Mahal in front of you? No offense, I like you, but I see this focusing on the mote in an eye instead of the plank in another’s regularly here.

I am not competing with you or anyone else for the title of King Scientist of Sound Science. That’s a position I’m neither qualified for nor interested in. I know about what I know about and I share that for practical reasons. People have shared this info with me over the years, and I pay it forward too.

I’ll give it up for impedance or lack of power, obsolete technology, bizarre non standard designs and just plain old defective merch. But that isn’t what the guy who is asking if he should upgrade from a typical $200 DAC to a $2,000 one is asking. I’m trying to address the question, not answer a million questions that haven’t been asked. Doing that just muddies the water and gives chimpanzee trolls something to grab onto. I wouldn’t do that to you. And if I inadvertently do, let me know and I’ll gladly apologize, because that isn’t my purpose here. I’m here to help.

 

[T 1000]

New doesn't mean exclusively better. My current headphones are from the late 80s, but on my system they sound much better than the new Arya and Solaris SE over the iBasso DX 220. It wasn't like that with the same components and before all the upgrades I made. So when I read that the cables or other equipment I installed make no difference in the sound, then that's trolling, anywhere and by anyone
If you haven't tried it, then don't convince others that you know better than those who have tried ,and are using it

 

[The Jester]

I’m trying to help real people who want to put together a high fidelity sound system using scientific principles. I’m not here to don a white lab coat and pretend to be a scientist. Science isn’t just for scientists. It’s for real people too.

Here is my problem with exceptions… because so many people see posting in sound science as a contest to see who the biggest super genius in the group is, the exceptions get mentioned way out of proportion to their likelihood of actually being the case. And they’re always trotted out to try to cut me off at the knees when there’s a gold plated idiot saying things that are much more deserving of being corrected. In this case we have a dolt who clearly is posting anti-scientific, pro-subjective logical fallacies. Why does the devil’s advocate focus on esoteric filters that only exist an a tiny proportion of DACs when you have a pile of boloney as tall as the Taj Mahal in front of you? No offense, I like you, but I see this focusing on the mote in an eye instead of the plank in another’s regularly here.

I am not competing with you or anyone else for the title of King Scientist of Sound Science. That’s a position I’m neither qualified for nor interested in. I know about what I know about and I share that for practical reasons. People have shared this info with me over the years, and I pay it forward too.

I’ll give it up for impedance or lack of power, obsolete technology, bizarre non standard designs and just plain old defective merch. But that isn’t what the guy who is asking if he should upgrade from a typical $200 DAC to a $2,000 one is asking. I’m trying to address the question, not answer a million questions that haven’t been asked. Doing that just muddies the water and gives chimpanzee trolls something to grab onto. I wouldn’t do that to you. And if I inadvertently do, let me know and I’ll gladly apologize, because that isn’t my purpose here. I’m here to help.

I can appreciate where you’re coming from and I have no problem with your style and approach to the subjects in question, but (there’s always a but isn’t there ) where I’m coming from is a little different, also not a white coated scientist my history is a lifetime in the auto repair industry, now happily retired and with the time to pursue my long standing interest in audio, I spent the last couple of decades fault finding electronic auto systems, engine electronics, fuel injection, ABS, SRS etc, and all too often I’ve been in front of a diagnostic screen saying “everything’s fine” when it obviously isn’t, so then the process of working out what is within the parameters and capabilities of the test equipment in question, as the fault obviously, and often not so obviously is outside of those, and I’ve had some unexpected and sometimes quite bizarre results,
So for me test and measurement while being vitally important isn’t always the whole 100% picture that we see, or in this case hear, so posing questions isn’t asking for definitive, specific answers, merely putting something out there that may prompt further discussion.

 

[bigshot]

Oh! Debugging is a great thing and it can be a real hoodoo requiring a lot of experience. But when someone asks if they will hear a difference if they buy a DAC or amp that costs five or ten times as much as a typical one that they already own, that isn't debugging. The answer there is pretty clear... if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

[nraymond]

New doesn't mean exclusively better. My current headphones are from the late 80s, but on my system they sound much better than the new Arya and Solaris SE over the iBasso DX 220. It wasn't like that with the same components and before all the upgrades I made. So when I read that the cables or other equipment I installed make no difference in the sound, then that's trolling, anywhere and by anyone
If you haven't tried it, then don't convince others that you know better than those who have tried ,and are using it

For your component testing, was it done sighted, or blind? Sighted testing is not reliable:

http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/04/dishonesty-of-sighted-audio-product.html

 

[The Jester]

Oh! Debugging is a great thing and it can be a real hoodoo requiring a lot of experience. But when someone asks if they will hear a difference if they buy a DAC or amp that costs five or ten times as much as a typical one that they already own, that isn't debugging. The answer there is pretty clear... if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Similar process involved in optimising and debugging,
Something that’s not operating 100% as it should could be the issue, but most often not…

 

[bigshot]

You can't optimize perfect any further though! That's the time to stop and listen to the music.

 

[The Jester]

Indeed…
More listening and less fiddling and forum posting …

 

[T 1000]

For your component testing, was it done sighted, or blind? Sighted testing is not reliable:

http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/04/dishonesty-of-sighted-audio-product.html

A perfectly correct question.
I approach my upgrade or component change studiously and by filtering the user's statements. When I have chosen what to buy, and received it, I approach the hearing test completely impartially, because even though 100% of users have a positive experience, they may not work in my system. If it doesn't work, I get rid of the purchased component. , because my goal is to build for the better.
I am aware of the importance of unbiased listening. When you allow yourself even the smallest illusion, then it can only go wrong.
The good thing is when you love what you have built and know it well, then the possibility of making a mistake when choosing the next upgrade is reduced.

 

[T 1000]

With each upgrade I expected my Arya to become better than my Senn. , but that doesn't happen, due to the simple fact that Arya is completely poor in presenting mid-range frequencies. Arya are exceptional headphones, but Senn. is a masterpiece.
My Senn. is a perfect tool for scanning changes, what I detect with Senn. can't with Arya.
Reference (unpainted, technically capable, and carefully designed) equipment is necessary for detection. Of course, the cleanest connections (cables) that you can afford are implied (better cables = higher bandwidth+ protection from external bad influence).
When cables are discussed, the entire industry and 99% of those with normal hearing know that it is real, the opponents are only those who have not tried it and want to show that their logic is ahead of someone's experience.
With such thinking, you are only harming yourself and others by not venturing into already established paths.