[Pudu]

Not sure our perceptions are lying to us. The 'flat earth' model is perfectly accurate and workable for many practical purposes., e.g. construction of a house. Within the framework that sustains the perception - to wit, that of a being about six feet tall on a very large sphere, having the eyes we do, etc - we see what we should see.
 
Similarly, Newtonian physics is a perfectly accurate model for many practical purposes, even though its theoretical foundation is "wrong".
 
The problem I think is that - as glenda suggested elsewhere - lacking a proper and complete model of whatever it is we (audiophiles) are doing, we cannot decide meaningful hypotheses to test, nor determine the relative effect of many of the things we can measure. In science, 'facts' (measurements) don't mean anything in isolation: or rather, they mean different things depending on which (supported) theory or model is being applied at the time.
 
In general, I think we have a lot of data ATM but lack a sufficient theory to account for it. We're at about the level physics was a few centuries ago. To make things worse, we have to make buying decisions based on this unsatisfactory and fragmented 'knowledge'.
 


 

Well you can't have it both ways. The Earth was too big so we were unable to measure the curvature. But now it's flat for our general purposes. Which one is it?

This is the problem with people who use anecdotal evidence to state facts about audio perception. There is no empirical, re-testable data to back up their assertions so we get mired down in meaningless analogies.

And then we don't know everything about everything, therefore we should stop using our brains and accept that there is some unknown, undetectable force at work causing some of us to perceive the "real" world when others cannot. We didn't understand the ozone layer 100 years ago. Fine. So are the really expensive DACs using high energy from the Sun to convert O2 to O3 to improve the sound?

We can measure electrons very accurately - just not with our eardrums or eyeballs or taste buds. The human eye is quite adept at picking nuances in human facial expressions at a subconscious level, but that doesn't mean we can do it when said face is 600 miles away, or do it up close in the ultra-violet spectrum.

We aren't at the level of physics pre-Niels Bohr because this is physics. Without an understanding of quantum electro-dynamics you wouldn't have a cd player to use with your headphones.


I think the bigger problem is making buying decisions on anecdotal evidence and unsubstantiated third party opinions. If you want to spend the money to be part of an exclusive club or because it gives you more pleasure, there's nothing wrong with it. But I take issue with people saying we don't know everything therefore let's throw the baby out with the bath water (to use another meaningless metaphor).

 

[Argo Duck]

Hmm..I agree with much of what you say above (much of which I assume is not addressed to me specifically, as I don't say/do many of these things). And I have enjoyed posts I've read of yours recently.
 
Speaking as a researcher, the problem is we can and do have it both (and more) ways - when competing and equally plausible theories account for the same data. Well, it's not really a problem - it's what makes science interesting.
 
I probably shouldn't have butted in here - wasn't following the thread properly and perhaps not making pertinent comment 

 
 

 

[Pudu]

Hmm..I agree with much of what you say above (much of which I assume is not addressed to me specifically, as I don't say/do many of these things). And I have enjoyed posts I've read of yours recently.
 
Speaking as a researcher, the problem is we can and do have it both (and more) ways - when competing and equally plausible theories account for the same data. Well, it's not really a problem - it's what makes science interesting.
 
I probably shouldn't have butted in here - wasn't following the thread properly and perhaps not making pertinent comment 

 
 

No, not directed at you at all. Hope it didn't come across that way. Not directed at anyone in particular. I was more speaking to the all too common tendency to resort to unrelated analogies. With regard to the Earth example - I agree with you there, it just doesn't support the argument for which it was being invoked.

I don't know enough about DACs to have an opinion about what's worth spending money on. I do know enough about the physical world to know when these type of erroneous analogies don't make sense, especially in the context of the discussion.

 

[Argo Duck]

Agreed 

 

[Pudu]

I'll take you up on that pint!

Especially if I have can have it with a view of the Otago Peninsula. Lovely!

 

[Argo Duck]

Absolutely 

 

[glenda]

Quote:

 
 
The problem I think is that - as glenda suggested elsewhere - lacking a proper and complete model of whatever it is we (audiophiles) are doing, we cannot decide meaningful hypotheses to test, nor determine the relative effect of many of the things we can measure. In science, 'facts' (measurements) don't mean anything in isolation: or rather, they mean different things depending on which (supported) theory or model is being applied at the time.
 
In general, I think we have a lot of data ATM but lack a sufficient theory to account for it. We're at about the level physics was a few centuries ago. To make things worse, we have to make buying decisions based on this unsatisfactory and fragmented 'knowledge'.
 


 

Yes it is impossible to take ac voltage measurements,  run FFT's make pretty charts and graphs and say we have all the answers without a working model of the ear/temporal membrane, brain, conciousnes, etc.  
 
What do we do?   The DUT(device under test) has to include the listener (that's us),  it isn't cartesian like Descarte chopping everything into separate sections.  
 
Buy Dac's you can afford as a hobby,  sell the one's you don' like,  keep the ones you do.   Don't take it too serious because this is supposed to be fun,  and as another post said its what makes science so interesting,  because well there is a lot of unchartered territory.  Audiophilia/Psycoacoustical Science is one of those territories,  we ain't building a house here.
 

 

[tomb]

JMHO, but I think a lot of people are trying to justify cheap DACs and sound cards in this thread.  There are many cheap DACs that sound great and I use them myself, but to imply that there's no difference is a bit much and is misleading and unfair to a lot of the newer folks around here.
 
It's also blind faith to think that if you can't measure a difference that there is no difference and a litle bit arrogant to think that you can measure everything.  Besides the vastly different topologies (there's a lot more to a DAC design than the chip converting the digital stream), DACs behave differently with different amplifiers, too.
 
Every part of the chain in sound reproduction is important, but if I had to guess which were most important - I'd start with the opposite ends of that chain.  Nothing will affect your listening experience more than the source or the headphones.
 
Why not talk about specific examples of different sounding DACs, which one is better and at what price?  Again just my humble opinion, but that would be a lot more helpful than some of these other arguments.

 

[sterling1]

Since I have a Sony TA-E9000ES Digital Processing Amplifier, I can use its DAC for computer audio, converting USB to S/PDIF using an X-FI HD. In experiments attempting to decide whether to indeed process using the processing amp's internal DAC, or the computer's DAC, I have never been able to clearly perceive  one DAC over another being better: computer, X-FI, or Sony TA-E9000ES; however, since I often record compilations to DAT, using the processing amp's DAC assures no unnecessary ADC conversion; so, that's what I use. Bottom-line, seems to me, the DAC today  is within sight of becoming a commodity item; and, therefore,  branding must include hyperbole  and a measure of gobbledygook to sucker a fool to part from his money for any DAC that is more than a few hundred dollars..

 

[Stereodude]

Quote:

It's also blind faith to think that if you can't measure a difference that there is no difference and a litle bit arrogant to think that you can measure everything.  Besides the vastly different topologies (there's a lot more to a DAC design than the chip converting the digital stream), DACs behave differently with different amplifiers, too.

 
Ahh yes...  The age old argument that we can hear things that can't be measured.  You have proof of this right?  You have two DACs that measure identically in every possible way but you can pass a proper ABX (double blind) test and tell them apart right?

 

[oatmeal769]

Quote:

 
Ahh yes...  The age old argument that we can hear things that can't be measured.  You have proof of this right?  You have two DACs that measure identically in every possible way but you can pass a proper ABX (double blind) test and tell them apart right?

Even if units have MEASUREABLE differences, The assertion that someone (always with golden ears) can HEAR a difference (always with the more expensive unit sounding better) is laughable when they cannot simply demonstrate it.

 

[Stereodude]

Quote:

Even if units have MEASUREABLE differences, The assertion that someone (always with golden ears) can HEAR a difference (always with the more expensive unit sounding better) is laughable when they cannot simply demonstrate it.

That's very likely true.  I was just starting with the simplest question that could be derived from his claims.

 

[leeperry]

 

No problem.  It just means I have even more golden ears than i thought i did!

All DAC's sound different, especially w/ headphones. And the more expensive, the better components and the clearer the SQ...there's no mystery nor miracle really. Manufacturers make a 400% markup and resellers 50% so it takes quite a lot of money to get quality stuff.

 

[El_Doug]

I'd call that QUITE the miracle!  Perhaps I should have asked my SR-009 dealer to charge me twice as much money, so they would sound even better!!! 
 
Quote:

And the more expensive, the better components and the clearer the SQ...there's no mystery nor miracle really.

 

 

[Head Injury]

Maybe if I sold leeperry my $2 opamps for $200, he'd rave about them.