[gregorio]

Actually, i think you've got the part about the pig backwards....

You think I'VE got it backwards? Oh dear!

Maybe I was wrong, compared to your line of reasoning, the cables forum is starting to look like the epitome of truth and rational thought!

G

 

[KeithEmo]

As I said, that's because they expect you to be basing your statements on "the standard assumptions"....
I suspect, however, that if you specifically told one of them them that you HAD seen a pig fly - whether on an airplane, or under its own power on a hang glider....
They would have qualified their statement as I suggested - rather than simply insist that you must be mistaken.
(See what answer you get from a NASA scientist involved in "flight testing with animal test subjects".)

Likewise, if I were to walk into a good restaurant, and ask for "eggs", they would probably ask how I preferred them cooked.
Because, as you say, we would both assume that, by using the term "eggs", I was referring to chicken eggs...
And we would both assume that, if I'd wanted caviar (fish eggs), or perhaps turtle eggs, both of which they may in fact serve, I would have said so.)

However, if you were working an a lab doing research on embryology, and someone were to ask "how you would like those eggs you'd requested prepared".....
They probably would NOT assume that you meant "poached" or "scrambled".

The problem in this forum is that people specifically confuse the contexts of "pure science" and "practical consumer advice"....

There is a specific difference between saying: "Most people don't notice much difference between most R2R and D-S DACs."....
And saying: "There is no difference between them that is audible to any human under any circumstances."....

My personal belief on "whether there is a measurable difference between R2R and D-S DACs that is audible" is this....

- Most high quality DACs both measure and sound very similar.
(Note that I said "most" but didn't generalize that to "all".)
- However there are in fact obviously measurable differences between them.
- And sometimes specific types of errors and distortions may be audible, under certain conditions, and to certain people.
(Note that I DID NOT say "all" or "most" or "usually".)
- R2R and D-S DACs are measurably prone to different types of flaws, errors, and distortions.
- Therefore, it makes sense that, WHEN THERE ARE AUDIBLE FLAWS, those audible flaws may be distinctive of one type or the other.
(If an R2R DAC and a D-S DAC both have audible distortion, they will often have different types of audible distortion, which will allow you to recognize which type they are.)

And, yes, I would be a lot more pedantic when discussing this on an AUDIO SCIENCE forum...
Than I would when discussing it on a consumer advice forum...
Or with a buddy who was trying to decide which $500 stereo system to buy...

To me, from the title, this is NOT "a consumer advice forum"....
It is a SOUND SCIENCE DISCUSSION forum....
(But clearly some people don't agree.... )
And, yes, when there is a lot of anecdotal evidence that seems to contradict the experimental evidence, there is most certainly "cause for discussion"....
(Whether the answer turns out to be in the realm of physical science, psychoacoustics, psychology, or marketing.....)

And, from both the title of this thread, and its content, it is quite clear that many people DO NOT start from the same base assumptions.
Perhaps, if you asked for "eggs" on some tropical island, and didn't specify which sort, you'd end up with poached turtle eggs instead of chicken eggs.
(And many people on this forum quite apparently do not take it for their base assumption that "all DACs sound the same" - whether you do or not.)

I work with a number of PHD level scientists, a few who are recognized in their field as thought leaders.

I asked a few this morning if pigs can fly. All responded "No" with no further qualification. Apparently not all scientists (even good ones) are as pedantic as you believe them to be.

 

[SilentNote]

I think unless a moderator moves this thread to the other one I don't think it can stop getting hijacked..

 

[KeithEmo]

Not at all....

In fact, I personally happen to believe that most of what they believe is incorrect, based on my personal knowledge and experience.
However, as an engineer, I can easily provide numerous examples of situations where different cables do in fact sound quite different.....
Therefore, it would be equally foolish to automatically assume that they must always be wrong.

You think I'VE got it backwards? Oh dear!

Maybe I was wrong, compared to your line of reasoning, the cables forum is starting to look like the epitome of truth and rational thought!

G

 

[SilentNote]

Not at all....

In fact, I personally happen to believe that most of what they believe is incorrect, based on my personal knowledge and experience.
However, as an engineer, I can easily provide numerous examples of situations where different cables do in fact sound quite different.....
Therefore, it would be equally foolish to automatically assume that they must always be wrong.

Oh wow, big ass opinion right there. Too bad it isn't any bigger than mine.

 

[KeithEmo]

I have an interesting, and quite serious, question for you......

What should we be discussing?

Assuming that, as some folks would like, we dismiss all anecdotal evidence as "meaningless"....
Then, until and unless someone sponsors a proper scientific study on the subject, we don't have anything left to discuss.
So we might as well close the thread now.

To be frank.... with nothing but endless exchanges of....

"I think I hear a difference...." <-> "We don't care what you think you hear unless you can prove it".

It just gets sort of boring after a while.

I think unless a moderator moves this thread to the other one I don't think it can stop getting hijacked..

 

[SilentNote]

Anecdotal "evidence" you mean. Well lets exchange opinions and see whose opinion is better.

I think your opinion while interesting fundamentally sucks.

Oh also in my opinion, you must be kind of slow. Since you don't even know what to discuss in a sound science forum. But exchanging opinions surely is very helpful to improving everyone's understanding. Especially to what you're trying to sell. As long as they believe in your opinion, they'll pay their arms and legs for it.

Still I think your opinion sucks. Because it's different from mine and mine is BETTER. My opinion RIGHT. Yours is WRONG. So your opinion sucks. Your opinion also tries to discredit the scientific work of the past century with your opinion. With no references from yourself, just your opinion which is evidently inferior from mine.

 

[Steve999]

I have an interesting, and quite serious, question for you......

What should we be discussing?

 

[bfreedma]

As I said, that's because they expect you to be basing your statements on "the standard assumptions"....
I suspect, however, that if you specifically told one of them them that you HAD seen a pig fly - whether on an airplane, or under its own power on a hang glider....
They would have qualified their statement as I suggested - rather than simply insist that you must be mistaken.
(See what answer you get from a NASA scientist involved in "flight testing with animal test subjects".)

Likewise, if I were to walk into a good restaurant, and ask for "eggs", they would probably ask how I preferred them cooked.
Because, as you say, we would both assume that, by using the term "eggs", I was referring to chicken eggs...
And we would both assume that, if I'd wanted caviar (fish eggs), or perhaps turtle eggs, both of which they may in fact serve, I would have said so.)

However, if you were working an a lab doing research on embryology, and someone were to ask "how you would like those eggs you'd requested prepared".....
They probably would NOT assume that you meant "poached" or "scrambled".

The problem in this forum is that people specifically confuse the contexts of "pure science" and "practical consumer advice"....

There is a specific difference between saying: "Most people don't notice much difference between most R2R and D-S DACs."....
And saying: "There is no difference between them that is audible to any human under any circumstances."....

My personal belief on "whether there is a measurable difference between R2R and D-S DACs that is audible" is this....

- Most high quality DACs both measure and sound very similar.
(Note that I said "most" but didn't generalize that to "all".)
- However there are in fact obviously measurable differences between them.
- And sometimes specific types of errors and distortions may be audible, under certain conditions, and to certain people.
(Note that I DID NOT say "all" or "most" or "usually".)
- R2R and D-S DACs are measurably prone to different types of flaws, errors, and distortions.
- Therefore, it makes sense that, WHEN THERE ARE AUDIBLE FLAWS, those audible flaws may be distinctive of one type or the other.
(If an R2R DAC and a D-S DAC both have audible distortion, they will often have different types of audible distortion, which will allow you to recognize which type they are.)

And, yes, I would be a lot more pedantic when discussing this on an AUDIO SCIENCE forum...
Than I would when discussing it on a consumer advice forum...
Or with a buddy who was trying to decide which $500 stereo system to buy...

To me, from the title, this is NOT "a consumer advice forum"....
It is a SOUND SCIENCE DISCUSSION forum....
(But clearly some people don't agree.... )
And, yes, when there is a lot of anecdotal evidence that seems to contradict the experimental evidence, there is most certainly "cause for discussion"....
(Whether the answer turns out to be in the realm of physical science, psychoacoustics, psychology, or marketing.....)

And, from both the title of this thread, and its content, it is quite clear that many people DO NOT start from the same base assumptions.
Perhaps, if you asked for "eggs" on some tropical island, and didn't specify which sort, you'd end up with poached turtle eggs instead of chicken eggs.
(And many people on this forum quite apparently do not take it for their base assumption that "all DACs sound the same" - whether you do or not.)

I asked them again about your pigs on an airplane reference and the universal response was "Those aren't flying pigs - the airplane is flying". Same answer as when you asked this morning to whether pigs fly - an unqualified "No"

Again, real scientists are not as pedantic as you believe, and also don't look for qualifiers until presented with the need to do so. One of the scientists I work will likely be a Nobel candidate in the next few years based on her work in AI. She's finding your views of how to pursue questions highly entertaining and wants to know if you have another absurd way of asking a question with such an obvious answer.

Rational people, including scientists, know how to parse a simple question in a generalized setting and expect that if the questioner doesn't provide qualifiers, they have no need to run through all of the options that are theoretically possible, like genetically engineered winged pigs which don't exist to date.

When you find measurements indicating audible differences between properly built R2R and DS DACs, please post it so we can have an actual discussion and not a theoretical one.

 

[bigshot]

I asked them again about your pigs on an airplane reference and the universal response was "Those aren't flying pigs - the airplane is flying". Same answer as when you asked this morning to whether pigs fly - an unqualified "No".

Can you ask them this question for me?

 

[KeithEmo]

The problem is that there are plenty of measurements showing that significant and sometimes quite obvious differences exist.
And nobody has actually done any significant experiments to determine whether they are audible or not.

What we have is a bunch of people who have chosen to infer that the measured differences aren't audible...
However, those inferences are based on the results of experiments that were devised and carried out to test different things under different conditions.
For example, many experiments have been conducted, which seem to clearly show that most humans cannot hear steady state sine waves at frequencies significantly above 20 kHz.
However, very few experiments have been done to determine the audibility of non-steady-state or pulsed tones above 20 kHz.
And even fewer tests have been done to determine whether the presence of sounds which are themselves inaudible may affect our perception of sounds which are audible.
And, more specifically, I am not aware of any formal tests to specifically determine whether ringing above 20 kHz, in close proximity in time, before or after other sounds, is audible or not.
Therefore, what we have are a bunch of people who have chosen to infer one from the other, based on their opinion that the situations are close enough to be considered equivalent.
(Although Dolby Labs, as well as many DAC chip manufacturers, claim that pre-ringing and post-ringing are audible distinguishable...)

If you are aware of a single experiment that was conducted specifically to determine whether the presence of ringing above 20 kHz had an audible effect on audible content....
Do please post THOSE results...
(I've singled out this aspect as the most obvious - but there are other ways in which the imperfections in D-S DACs and R2R DACs tend to vary.)

Incidentally, if your friend is researching AI interfaces to be used with human subjects...I'm sure she's encountered far more entertaining variations and questions by now.

The problem is that, while the subject of flying pigs is one in which it can fairly be claimed that "most people know the context you're in"....
The same is not at all true for measuring DACs....

Incidentally, if anyone was interested in actually performing a few experiments to settle this question, rather than arguing endlessly about why they don't have to...
I could offer a few suggestions about how one might go about it...

I asked them again about your pigs on an airplane reference and the universal response was "Those aren't flying pigs - the airplane is flying". Same answer as when you asked this morning to whether pigs fly - an unqualified "No"

Again, real scientists are not as pedantic as you believe, and also don't look for qualifiers until presented with the need to do so. One of the scientists I work will likely be a Nobel candidate in the next few years based on her work in AI. She's finding your views of how to pursue questions highly entertaining and wants to know if you have another absurd way of asking a question with such an obvious answer.

Rational people, including scientists, know how to parse a simple question in a generalized setting and expect that if the questioner doesn't provide qualifiers, they have no need to run through all of the options that are theoretically possible, like genetically engineered winged pigs which don't exist to date.

When you find measurements indicating audible differences between properly built R2R and DS DACs, please post it so we can have an actual discussion and not a theoretical one.

 

[KeithEmo]

Incidentally, according to the dictionary, the pigs are flying....

fly·ing
/ˈflīiNG/



adjective
adjective: flying

1. 1.
   moving or able to move through the air with wings.
   "a flying ant"
   synonyms: airborne, in the air, in flight; More
   fluttering, flitting, flapping, hovering, floating, gliding, windborne, soaring, winging, wheeling;
   winged;

noun
noun: flying

1. 1.
   flight, especially in an aircraft.
   "she hates flying"

I asked them again about your pigs on an airplane reference and the universal response was "Those aren't flying pigs - the airplane is flying". Same answer as when you asked this morning to whether pigs fly - an unqualified "No"

Again, real scientists are not as pedantic as you believe, and also don't look for qualifiers until presented with the need to do so. One of the scientists I work will likely be a Nobel candidate in the next few years based on her work in AI. She's finding your views of how to pursue questions highly entertaining and wants to know if you have another absurd way of asking a question with such an obvious answer.

Rational people, including scientists, know how to parse a simple question in a generalized setting and expect that if the questioner doesn't provide qualifiers, they have no need to run through all of the options that are theoretically possible, like genetically engineered winged pigs which don't exist to date.

When you find measurements indicating audible differences between properly built R2R and DS DACs, please post it so we can have an actual discussion and not a theoretical one.

 

[chaos215bar2]

I have an interesting, and quite serious, question for you......

What should we be discussing?

Well, that is a hard question. (I mean, what is a discussion, anyway. It’s just so hard to be certain in a proper scientific setting.)

But… I don’t know. We could go with “R2R/multibit vs Delta-Sigma - Is There A Measurable Scientific Difference That's Audible”.

 

[bfreedma]

Can you ask them this question for me?

They want you to clarify if it's an African or European swallow.

And is the swallow in question onboard a jet?

 

[bfreedma]

Incidentally, according to the dictionary, the pigs are flying....

fly·ing
/ˈflīiNG/



adjective
adjective: flying

1. 1.
   moving or able to move through the air with wings.
   "a flying ant"
   synonyms: airborne, in the air, in flight; More
   fluttering, flitting, flapping, hovering, floating, gliding, windborne, soaring, winging, wheeling;
   winged;

noun
noun: flying

1. 1.
   flight, especially in an aircraft.
   "she hates flying"

Definition of pedantic


1: of, relating to, or being a pedanta pedantic teacher
2: narrowly, stodgily, and often ostentatiously learneda pedantic insistence that we follow the rules exactly. Far worse, he was pedantic, pernickety, letting nothing inaccurate or of uncertain meaning go by—not an aphrodisiac quality.— Kingsley Amis
3: UNIMAGINATIVE, DULL Pedantic song choices don't help any. Only 2 out of 10 songs stray from the most common classic-rock fodder.
4: overly concerned with minute details or formalisms, especially in teaching.