[Joe Rasmussen]

Seems I have committed a cardinal rule, I am in business, my bad.

But I make people happy - not much of that here.

Try to have a good day, the sun is at least shining here in Sydney.

 

[old tech]

Thank you for your 'moderate' words.

I have never said that ABX testing was wrong, only that I have some rational reservations about how it works. I do think there is room for improvement.

I know that here in Sydney at Macquarie University, they have been trying to make ABX testing better. I have seen ABX testing and I was struck by the near constant confusion of the process. For a listening test to be valid, in my mind, it needs to be well anchored in some reliable way. ABX can be improved.

Which discipline? I wouldn't mind following this up.

I personally know a couple of senior lecturers at Macquarie, including the music faculty. I have never heard anyone there lamenting that ABX testing is confusing.

While ABX tests are refined, depending on the experiment or test being conducted, I very much doubt anyone at the uni would not accept ABX as the gold standard, let alone being inferior to subjective sighted tests. The people that would make such claims ar those that cannot support their hypotheses and frustrated when ABX testing does not confirm their beliefs. Is it then no surprise that those that eschew ABX testing typically are people found in the psuedosciences?

 

[Alboxing]

In my personal experience, most of the differences in dacs are due to the different reconstruction filters applied and if they make use oversampling or not etc, rather than the dac architecture itself.

For example, the famous Khadas Tone Board which uses an ESS DS dac chip (normally known for being "analytical", "sterile", "dry sounding" etc etc), was apparently set in NOS mode and it is probably why lots of people are praising it for its "warm, lush and musical sound".

 

[Joe Bloggs]

The question is about whether those differences in measurement is audible?

Now I am not God, so I shall not play one. So since we have a loaded question, is this because there is a difference and we can measure it? OK then. But if this is a case where you can measure a difference, then we have the answer: It measures differently and it sounds different. Great! No issues from me. What's the problem if there isn't a problem? Haven't they cornered themselves?

Hi Joe,
Out of the mountain of words that has piled up since my last visit, I shall point to only this paragraph and make one basic, basic objection: A measurable difference is not necessarily audible.

On the other hand, I don't think anyone is asking for a measurement comparison between an R/2R DAC and a D/S DAC from you, since you obviously did not mod one into the other. Rather, people are asking for measurements between the original D/S DAC and your modded one.

Cheers,
Joseph

 

[Gazny]

So what gear have people heard that they didn't enjoy. Went back a few pages and couldn't find much. So far my test song has been Chameleon - Herbie Hancock unfortunately It isn't in 24 bit WAV but it does sound good from Spotify.

 

[Sil3nce]

Mod comment: We usually let the sound science section dictate their own pace in terms of discussion, but too many of these posts have gone against the acceptable threshold.
Due the direction of this thread, I have deleted posts pertaining to any inflammatory, personal, and off-topic banter.

 

[gregorio]

TBH, deleting a bunch of lies, fallacies and deflections, plus the obvious responses to them, is not such a bad thing. Although it could have been somewhat informative for some readers, both in relation to this specific thread/topic and many others.

This is worth addressing further because it ultimately goes to the heart of this thread and many others.

if we're being honest, if I could get rid of empty claims on the forum, I'd do it right now. that would almost magically improve the mood and the content quality in that section. so I do blame "them" for acting on emotion while pretending to be the voice of science, but I also get why they do it.
there is a kind of statistical relevance to it. like how our best bet when trying to predict tomorrows weather(without any actual information) is to simply bet that it will be close to what it was today, assuming that someone making an empty claim on the forum is full of crap, also turns out to be the safest bet we can make.

It seems to assume that all empty claims are equal but that's not the case; we've got empty claims, extraordinary claims, ridiculous claims and everything in between. Science itself recognises this with one of it's famous axioms, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". For example, if someone comes here and says jitter noise/artefacts at -80dB are audible, without any reliable evidence, that's an empty claim with a high probability of being false. If someone says jitter noise at -110dB is audible without any reliable evidence, that's an extraordinary claim, it's near the threshold of what's even possible to reproduce, not far from the level that's likely to cause hearing damage, is virtually certain to be unidentifiable in any music signal (even given the most optimal conditions) and would require some extraordinary evidence. This empty claim is likely to get a somewhat harsher response from me if it's repeated/defended without any reliable evidence. And, if someone claims jitter noise at -140dB is audible, that's ridiculous, it can't even be reproduced and therefore can't be audible by definition. This empty claim is likely to get the harshest response from me if it's repeated/defended (without extraordinary evidence).

G

 

[castleofargh]

TBH, deleting a bunch of lies, fallacies and deflections, plus the obvious responses to them, is not such a bad thing. Although it could have been somewhat informative for some readers, both in relation to this specific thread/topic and many others.

This is worth addressing further because it ultimately goes to the heart of this thread and many others.


It seems to assume that all empty claims are equal but that's not the case; we've got empty claims, extraordinary claims, ridiculous claims and everything in between. Science itself recognises this with one of it's famous axioms, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". For example, if someone comes here and says jitter noise/artefacts at -80dB are audible, without any reliable evidence, that's an empty claim with a high probability of being false. If someone says jitter noise at -110dB is audible without any reliable evidence, that's an extraordinary claim, it's near the threshold of what's even possible to reproduce, not far from the level that's likely to cause hearing damage, is virtually certain to be unidentifiable in any music signal (even given the most optimal conditions) and would require some extraordinary evidence. This empty claim is likely to get a somewhat harsher response from me if it's repeated/defended without any reliable evidence. And, if someone claims jitter noise at -140dB is audible, that's ridiculous, it can't even be reproduced and therefore can't be audible by definition. This empty claim is likely to get the harshest response from me if it's repeated/defended (without extraordinary evidence).

G

my position is that if I doubt the content of a... let's call it "standalone statement", its lack of supporting evidence is sufficient for me to reject it. I'll simply not consider it a fact because I doubt it for some reason and haven't yet seen supporting evidence that could change my mind. we can discuss the statement, we can ask for evidence from the person who made it, we can bring our own evidence or reasoning as to why we came to doubt the statement in the first place. all that and more can be posted and help share our position on a subject so that other members can see our doubts and possibly agree. but we don't have to do all that, it's optional. one empty claim and us having some reason to doubt, that's enough to reject anything and refuse to accept it as a fact.

when your own knowledge is telling you that a claim is complete nonsense, like with hearing stuff down at 140dB below signal. you getting mad and insulting the poster is not part of science. it's not part of demonstrating that his claims is BS. that's just you getting mad and venting your frustration on someone in a way that is not allowed by this forum. if a claim is extraordinary and the poster doesn't offer supporting evidence when asked, or only very unreliable supporting evidence like "I know what I heard", why get mad and attack him? isn't that situation as clear as it can ever be? we already didn't have to accept his statement as a fact because it lacked proper supporting evidence. the extraordinary nature of the claim justifies even more skepticism. the case is ready made and we won it. just dismiss that statement(in your head or on the forum), explain why if you want or if someone asks, and move on. trying pages after pages to force someone to admit that he's wrong, and insulting him when he doesn't, that's not any part of the scientific method. don't get obsessive about making someone admit that he's wrong.
yes some people know perfectly well what they're saying, and they're just messing with us. a few would rather see the world burn than admit publicly to being wrong. but many are just ignorant enough to think they're right(which is probably my case a few times a day). they come sharing what they consider true in all honesty, so that others can know it. and IMO, many of those could have listened to an alternative position and changed their mind(if they could understand enough of the explanation, sometimes there will be a knowledge barrier). but instead they will usually close their mind as a defensive reaction to the aggression they have felt from you or whomever. the little stabs, the sarcasm, the sentences suggesting someone is a fraud or is simply too dumb to get it. all those completely unwarranted extras in a post are not just making many people run away from us, they will in many cases convince those people that your views on the topic are wrong. it's a pretty well know psychological case, and in a section where we do pay attention to biases, well that's one and you're using it against us.
even without forum rules demanding that we treat others with respect, it would still be counterproductive in the long run to attack people like this.


ps: I'm preaching something I have not been able to consistently do myself. but I try more and more to do it right(without the temper), and you should too.

 

[Joe Rasmussen]

I am ambivalent about the deletions. But if moderator felt it needed, then OK by me. I believe most people judge fairly, some of the things said about me here were totally unjustified. Most people would see that.

Could somebody, in a neutral tone, without acrimony, sum up exactly what is meant by the question (even if the ? mark is missing, it is a question).

For a question to be answered, the question must first be understood. Give the question a context.

Can somebody do that here?

 

[Joe Rasmussen]

Oops, duplication error.

 

[bigshot]

I volunteer this question.... "What's the point?"

 

[Joe Bloggs]

I am ambivalent about the deletions. But if moderator felt it needed, then OK by me. I believe most people judge fairly, some of the things said about me here were totally unjustified. Most people would see that.

Could somebody, in a neutral tone, without acrimony, sum up exactly what is meant by the question (even if the ? mark is missing, it is a question).

For a question to be answered, the question must first be understood. Give the question a context.

Can somebody do that here?

Are you sure you want to continue? If so...
The thread title was
R2R/multibit vs Delta-Sigma - Is There A Measurable Scientific Difference That's Audible?

I would define the question quickly as
1. Define the fundamental differences in sound that exist because of a DAC being designed as R/2R or as D/S. (Rather than that of any individual examples; however, real world design constraints and parts performance limits have to be taken into consideration, otherwise either design can be perfect in theory)
2. Are such differences audible in a provable way (i.e. in any truly blinded test. I would personally even be open to new-age methods like MRI results as long as the subject doesn't know which he's listening to.

(Btw I'm going to assume we don't want to discuss your Oppo mods anymore since that has nothing to do with the question. Or did I define the wrong question?)

 

[gregorio]

when your own knowledge is telling you that a claim is complete nonsense, like with hearing stuff down at 140dB below signal. you getting mad and insulting the poster is not part of science.

But I don't get mad with a claim that is complete nonsense, because the poster might simply be an average audiophile who's fallen victim to all the marketing BS. If they keep repeating their empty claim then I'll be somewhat harsher in my request/demand for evidence. I'll only actually get mad if it becomes obvious they're a troll, shill or member of the trade and, THEY start with the insults aimed at me or science/this sub-forum. I would tend to be harshest towards a manufacturer/maker because if they really were as ignorant of the basics as they make out, there's a chance their product could actually be dangerous and if they're not really that ignorant, then they've deliberately come to a sound Science forum to pervert science AND, are deliberately trying to scam me/audiophiles/potential audiophiles for personal gain. The only way we could not be mad at that, is if we care nothing for sound or the science/actual facts of it! I realise getting mad isn't part of science itself but particularly in this current age, scientists (and those who understand science) getting mad and expressing it, might be the only thing that stops us wiping ourselves out.

G

 

[sonitus mirus]

Getting mad about any comment made on an internet forum is like intentionally stepping in dog poop instead of walking around it.

 

[bigshot]

Getting mad about any comment made on an internet forum is like intentionally stepping in dog poop instead of walking around it.

Haha! ^ this

But I don't get mad with a claim that is complete nonsense, because the poster might simply be an average audiophile who's fallen victim to all the marketing BS. If they keep repeating their empty claim then I'll be somewhat harsher in my request/demand for evidence. I'll only actually get mad if it becomes obvious they're a troll, shill or member of the trade and, THEY start with the insults aimed at me or science/this sub-forum.

This ^ too.