I Don't Understand You Subjective Guys

[paradoxper]

Quote:

what's the difference between listening to an $800 USB cable and thinking that it's much better than a regular cable and listening to a $1000 DAC and thinking it sounds much better than an ODAC? because u know for a fact that USB cables don't make a difference? well, the USB cable believer doesn't know that, otherwise he wouldn't think that right?

Oh, but they do. Well, at least they maybe can or might? I mean, there's new technology today or something like that.
 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/617026/usb-cable-and-sound-quality/60#post_8564042
 
 
 
EDIT: But give it a few days, ok? Dont' want this to be too premature. 
 
 

 

[bellsprout]

 i should rephrase that, since we don't know about all the things we can't measure huh?
Quote:

Oh, but they do. Well, at least they maybe can or might? I mean, there's new technology today or something like that.
 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/617026/usb-cable-and-sound-quality/60#post_8564042
 
 
 
EDIT: But give it a few days, ok? Dont' want this to be too premature. 
 
 

 

[Magick Man]

RD, you are a better man than I.  You're still holding out hope, trying to convince people.  I gave up long ago.  Maybe it's time you did too.

You know, what gets me is that the Orthodox Objectivists claim they're trying to help people save money and avoid making bad purchasing decisions. Right? You know, beating the drum, crying for others to avoid the evils of $5000 amps and DACs, extolling the virtues of the disposable $100 receiver?

So, I took it upon myself to do some searching, and you know what? Finding the information they bellow about took 5 seconds in Google. Check it out, I typed in "do expensive audio cables make a difference?" and all the stuff they're preaching is out there, really! I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

Anyway, I guess the secrets are out. They can stop evangelizing now because, they won! Yay! Now they can go back to harassing Christians and worshiping climatologists, or whatever.

 

[TheAttorney]

Quote:

They can stop evangelizing now...

That will NEVER happen. Get used to it.
 
Edit: By that I mean that most hobbyists have some level of compulsive disorder.
Some hifi nuts are compelled to forever upgrade stuff long after it's strictly necessary to do so. I'm in that camp - but fighting hard to resist it,
 
There is another type of hifi nut who is compelled to always be right. And these people cannot stand it when others don't accept their flawless, scientifically proven, logic. They are compelled to bring up the topic again and again and again. They just can't help it - because it's a compulsive disorder.

 

[Chris J]

Quote:

This is all just a bunch of small minded BS. 
 
The fact is that measurements are meaningless without the subjective experience.  The subjective experience is the whole point.  Measurements can help us further understand that experience.  That's it.  None of the rest of this matters.  

 
The Real Question is:
 
Does the Subjective Experience sound like a real live performance under any circumstances? For example, a simple recording of a human voice and an acoustic guitar, or a string quartet?
Does this sound like a real live performance in your listening room?
 
Edit:   oops, I fixed some spelling mistakes.

 

[Magick Man]

The Real Question is:

Does the Subjective Experience sound like a real live performance under any circumstances? For example, a simple recording of a human voice and an acoustic guitar, or a string quartet.
Does this sound live a real live performance in your listening room?

Yes.

 

[Currawong]

I'm going to answer the original question.
Quote:

Why would anyone buy a $1000 DAC when the $150 ODAC performs just as good in blind testing as a DAC1?
 
Sometimes i think most of you guys are just buying an expensive placebo effect.. just like $1000 Cables.
 
Edit: Please note- I'm not trolling. Explanation of my viewpoints on the second page.

 
Nothing to understand. I didn't like the sound of the DAC1 last I heard it, compared to other DACs that were on hand. Nothing to do with price. Personally the price range of stuff I've liked varies from about $200 to $20,000.

 

[Magick Man]

I'm going to answer the original question.

Nothing to understand. I didn't like the sound of the DAC1 last I heard it, compared to other DACs that were on hand. Nothing to do with price. Personally the price range of stuff I've liked varies from about $200 to $20,000.

You're right. It is a difficult DAC/amp to love, it only seems to mesh with a few different headphones I have. But when it does it's extraordinary (TH900).

 

[germanium]

It was subjective reviewers that first pointed out the real problems that needed fixing in order to bring digital sound to the level of performance it is at today. Am I saying that they are correct at everything? no but subjective reviewing does in fact need to be done to 1. Warn people of products that underperform sonically & 2. Point out the exceptional performers as there are still such to be had & 3. Help find what causes those differences by working with engineers to  correct the problem areas as there are still componants that don't sound the best in spite of having great looking specs. I have seen these personally myself I.E. the low performers with otherwise greal looking specs. 
 
The best subjective reviewer would also be one who is capable to actually make the corrections that would make a componant that sound mehh to one that sounds superb because they would know then what actually causes the not so great sound in spite of the specs

 

[joeyjojo]

Lots of good posts and well thought out views, thanks all. This thread took a bit of a dip in the middle (although I learnt a lot about nature, that slug video is amazing) but looks like we're back.
 
I agree (I don't think anybody disagrees) that you've got to listen to gear as well as look at the specs and make measurents. I might be inclined to say though that in recent years, with technology reaching a state where the theory and the production capabilities are so mature, the differences are getting smaller and smaller, and I might even go as far as to say that eventually those differences will become imperceptible. This applies to something like a DAC or an amp, and not really to speakers, as the former are meant to be as neutral as possible (IMO).
 
An interesting case though I think is the beta22, which I write about a lot at the moment as I built one this year. This from the History page:
Quote:

Unlike past projects, I took full advantage of PSPICE simulation in the design phase of the β22 and σ22. This is partly because of the all-discrete nature of these projects, and also due to my acquisition of the OrCAD software suite. It turned out that simulations paid big dividends in allowing me to explore the effects of various design elements, and made it possible for me to tune the circuit without having built a real prototype. Changing something and seeing the result is a snap, which would have been cumbersome and expensive with real circuits. In fact, instead of the usual breadboard prototype, I went from simulation directly to a prototype PCB.

Actual circuit testing is still of paramount importance, of course, because simulations do not account for all real-world issues. I was pleasantly surprised, though, to find that the simulations were quite accurate.

 
Italics added by me. Many people contributed to the beta22 of course, and Ti and others have obviously built and heard previous versions, but I find it interesting that until the first prototype PCB was printed up and populated Ti hadn't actually listened to it, but rather analysed in a simulation the output. I add emphasis to "quite" as we don't know just how reliable the simulations were or how drastic the changes after hearing the prototype, but I suspect they were very small and the topology changed little, if any.
 
As technically probably the best amp in the world I find it worthy of note that the beta22 was designed "earless" and only listened to later, and then found (fortunately!) to sound damn good.

 

[Chris J]

Quote:

Lots of good posts and well thought out views, thanks all. This thread took a bit of a dip in the middle (although I learnt a lot about nature, that slug video is amazing) but looks like we're back.
 
I agree (I don't think anybody disagrees) that you've got to listen to gear as well as look at the specs and make measurents. I might be inclined to say though that in recent years, with technology reaching a state where the theory and the production capabilities are so mature, the differences are getting smaller and smaller, and I might even go as far as to say that eventually those differences will become imperceptible. This applies to something like a DAC or an amp, and not really to speakers, as the former are meant to be as neutral as possible (IMO).
 
An interesting case though I think is the beta22, which I write about a lot at the moment as I built one this year. This from the History page:
 
Italics added by me. Many people contributed to the beta22 of course, and Ti and others have obviously built and heard previous versions, but I find it interesting that until the first prototype PCB was printed up and populated Ti hadn't actually listened to it, but rather analysed in a simulation the output. I add emphasis to "quite" as we don't know just how reliable the simulations were or how drastic the changes after hearing the prototype, but I suspect they were very small and the topology changed little, if any.
 
As technically probably the best amp in the world I find it worthy of note that the beta22 was designed "earless" and only listened to later, and then found (fortunately!) to sound damn good.

 
Nice post!
But there are quite a few people out there that do not believe you have to listen to a DAC before you buy it: "if the specs say it is perfect, then it must be". Caveat emptor.
 
I have worked on design teams where the simulations we performed DID NOT not reveal all the problems we actually had when we actually built and populated the PCB.
Amplifiers would oscillate, microprocessors would not boot up, the equipment would conduct and radiate excess noise, power supplies would oscillate, user interfaces would be awkward, etc.
Bottom line:
There is absolutely no substitute for building a working prototype (not a breadboard or whatever, a real working prototype) and testing the hell out of it. 
A manufacturer would have to be insane to simulate, then go straight into production.
What changes are made when going from simulation to prototype to production?  The true real world answer is:  IT DEPENDS.
 
As Currawong pointed out, techincally the Benchmark DAC1 is a technical tour de force, but some folks just don't like the sound of it.
Check out some of the comments that Bryston equipment gets on the internet, technically they make great stuff, but some folks just find it to be too analytical, i.e they don't like listening to it.

 

[bigshot]

I love subjective reviews of equipment. You can't tell whether they're talking about Greek philosophy, a vase of flowers on a table or the dance of the seven veils. It's like a creative writing contest where you have to use certain buzzwords... revealing, analytical, veiled... I find that these sorts of comments tell me more about the writer than the equipment, and perhaps ultimately, that's the true purpose. I think a lot of subjective folks are frustrated artists trying to be creative in an area that usually is pretty technical and cut and dried.

Someone mentioned to me the other day that religion is about arguing... It really isn't. Religion is about knowing you don't have to argue because it's personal and only applicable to you. Aesthetics is all about arguing. I guess powder coat finishes and cherry wood equipment stands have entered the field of aesthetics for some people.

The irony is that all of this philosophy of aesthetics built up around equipment doesn't leave the equipment fanciers much time to argue about the aesthetics of music! I participate in the HeadFi music forum, TalkClassical, Organissimo, AllAboutJazz, and various other lounge, jazz, country and record collecting lists... But there never seem to be that many gear heads there. It would be interesting if people listed their favorite music in their sigs instead of equipment.

Sometimes I think equipment fanciers collect equipment the way bored housewives collect shoes.

 

[JadeEast]

Quote:

I love subjective reviews of equipment. You can't tell whether they're talking about Greek philosophy, a vase of flowers on a table or the dance of the seven veils. It's like a creative writing contest where you have to use certain buzzwords... revealing, analytical, veiled... I find that these sorts of comments tell me more about the writer than the equipment, and perhaps ultimately, that's the true purpose. I think a lot of subjective folks are frustrated artists trying to be creative in an area that usually is pretty technical and cut and dried.
Someone mentioned to me the other day that religion is about arguing... It really isn't. Religion is about knowing you don't have to argue because it's personal and only applicable to you. Aesthetics is all about arguing. I guess powder coat finishes and cherry wood equipment stands have entered the field of aesthetics for some people.
The irony is that all of this philosophy of aesthetics built up around equipment doesn't leave the equipment fanciers much time to argue about the aesthetics of music! I participate in the HeadFi music forum, TalkClassical, Organissimo, AllAboutJazz, and various other lounge, jazz, country and record collecting lists... But there never seem to be that many gear heads there. It would be interesting if people listed their favorite music in their sigs instead of equipment.
Sometimes I think equipment fanciers collect equipment the way bored housewives collect shoes.

So in your opinion, subjective equipment reviews are written by frustrated artists who have have misplaced aesthetic appreciation on gear rather than music. So why is this important? 

 

[anetode]

So in your opinion, subjective equipment reviews are written by frustrated artists who have have misplaced aesthetic appreciation on gear rather than music. So why is this important? 

It becomes annoying when audiophiles parrot what they read from these journalists. Don't like something? "Analytical" "Cold" "No emotional resonance". I get annoyed reading that kind of crap because it forces you to either exert effort in decoding the actual message or to completely ignore the statement. Often times the Audiophile-to-English decoder ring reveals that such statements amount to squat. I don't want to dismiss such subjective reporting entirely, it would just be so much easier for people to simply say that they don't like a piece of equipment. The rampant rationalization of every aesthetic opinion about every piece of gear is encouraged (if not trained) by many audiophile journalists.

 

[bigshot]

Anetode: Usually that stuff translates into hot air.

The problem with audio journalism is that the commercial interests have totally overpowered the journalistic ones. Many print magazines are just compendiums of advertorial. It's a shame because they're the ones that have the ability to take a wide ranging perspective, but they don't.