So why did Benchmark build two subsequent models that cost more than double the original DAC 1 that supposedly measured “perfectly”?
The DAC 1 did not measure “perfectly”, it’s impossible for any DAC or electronic component to measure perfectly because of the laws of physics but Benchmark did not claim it measured perfectly and no one who knows anything about audio measurements would “supposedly” believe it did. So yet again, you just made-up another falsehood to then argue a strawman!!
[1] Maybe it didn’t measure “perfectly” after all, and the improvements made an audible difference. [2] Since you can’t seem to hear audible differences in electronics and refuse to take anyone’s word for it who can, you will never know.
1. The DAC-1 never measured perfectly but it did measure all the artefacts/imperfections to be well below audibility. The DAC-2 and later models also did not measure perfectly (as that’s impossible) but they did measure the artefacts/imperfections to be even lower than the DAC-1 (and therefore obviously even further below audibility). So the DAC-2 is an improvement over the DAC-1 but not audibly different. Is that really such a hard concept to grasp?
2. Again, another falsehood to argue a strawman. How many times are you going to be so rude? Firstly, of course I can “
hear audible differences in electronics”, it would be impossible to do my job or teach it to others if I couldn’t. But, of course I cannot hear differences which are inaudible (as the measurements prove and Benchmark themselves state!) and obviously I’m not going to take the word of anyone who claims they can hear inaudible differences without substantial evidence, even less so if it’s just sighted audiophile testimonials and reviewer reports!
Not just jitter, but the sum of how the digital and analog sections of a DAC perform with other elements in the audio chain to maintain the pace, rhythm and timing of the original performance as perceived by the listener.
Huh? Jitter is defined as “timing error/deviation”, so if some DAC could not “
maintain the pace, rhythm and timing” how could it be “
not just jitter”? How could a failure to maintain the pace, rhythm and timing be due to something other than some sort of timing error/deviation?
“Timing” is an important element in accurately reproducing “syncopation” in musical performances, one of the elements in composition and performance that makes music interesting and involving to listeners.
Yes it is, very much so. However, even the best musicians are only accurate to a few milli-seconds, while the jitter (timing error/deviation) of even cheap consumer DACs from around 30 years ago was about 150 pico-seconds. Baring in mind that a pico-second is a billionth of a milli-second, maybe you’d like to explain how that could affect musical performances that are only accurate to a few milli-secs?
Exactly.
They'll claim to know what Benchmark does, what all audio manufacturers do in fact, what transients are audible and which aren't, what's "audibly transparent" (whatever the hell that means) who's susceptible to marketing, what you personally can hear and can't...basically there's no end to what they'll claim to know.
Notice, however, with no proof whatsoever. It's all just hot air.
What do you mean “no proof whatsoever”? We have objective measurements of how Benchmark’s DAC-1 performs, I personally (and others) have done a DBT with a DAC-1 and Benchmark themselves stated there’s no audible difference. So, completely contrary to “
no proof whatsoever”, how much more proof could there be?! Maybe you’re right though, maybe everyone who’s done a DBT is deaf, plus all the measurements are wrong, plus Benchmark themselves don’t “
know what Benchmark does”, while you do know because you’ve got the proof of your audiophile ears and reports from reviewers. Thanks for clearing that up for us in a sound science discussion forum, lol!
It's the certainty that they know the unknowable that I object to.
But it’s not unknowable. In fact not only is it knowable, it is actually known, demonstrably so! So how can you object to the certainty of what is known unless either you’re just trolling or just you personally are not aware of what is knowable and known? Even more bizarrely, you do not object to the certainty of those claiming to hear the inaudible because “
no proof whatsoever” is not “
just hot air” if it’s made by a middle aged audiophile with no formal listening skills training and shot hearing! ROFL!
The claim that you're only hearing things because of biases you can't avoid means that you're hearing things that aren't there. Well, of course - if you can't avoid the biases, you can't avoid them!
What claim of “
hearing things because of biases you can’t avoid”? If we can’t avoid biases, why do you think the DBT or ABX methodologies were invented, not to mention the video recently posted (
post #345) which proves that a bias can be avoided by just closing your eyes? You don’t seem to know even the basics, that there are numerous different types of biases, some of which cannot be avoided but many of which can be.
So who the hell cares what measurements say?
You mean apart from equipment designers who couldn’t design equipment without them, professional sound engineers who need to meet specifications in order to be professionals and those who just want to know the objective performance of audio equipment?
What are those thresholds? What units are they in?
So you don’t know what the thresholds are or even what units they’re in? That’s astonishing, why would someone come to a sound science discussion forum and argue endlessly about thresholds, if they don’t even know what they are? Incidentally, level thresholds are measured in decibels, frequency thresholds in Hertz, jitter thresholds in nano-seconds, distortion in percent, etc. Ask if you don’t know!
To me that just means audible. I'm not sure what transparent refers to. …. If "audibly transparent" means audible, I'd agree totally.
So you don’t know what audible means, you’re not sure what transparent means and you’ve therefore got “
audibly transparent” pretty much backwards. But don’t let that stop you from another few years arguing about them in a sound science discussion forum and insulting those who do know they mean. LMAO!
I don't call Gregorio's knowledge "hot air" and "religion".
Of course you don’t.
He has a great deal of knowledge (as do I).
You claim to be a professional in the industry, to have worked with great engineers who work in world class studios and have “
a great deal of knowledge” but have just demonstrated you don’t even know the basics of biases, don’t know that professional engineers must “care about what measurements say”, don’t know what human hearing thresholds are or what units are used for measurement and don’t know what audible, transparent or “audibly transparent” means! So apparently, “
a great deal of knowledge“ doesn’t even cover the fundamental basics. Now that’s funny!
Yes, we totally agree: my increased emotional response to improvements in the audio signal path are because those improvements are audible.
Glad that got cleared up.
You’re “
glad that got cleared up” by misrepresenting what was stated and coming an unsupported conclusion? Yep, welcome to the audiophile sound science forum in a parallel anti-matter universe, where everything is exactly backwards! LOL, at least it’s entertaining.
G
which is a pleasant change.
