R2R RIP or Resurrection?

[Diet Kokaine]

But you are confusing your perception for reality.

Our mind grasps only fragments of reality—a narrow aperture onto an infinite expanse. The universe’s complexity defies my brain’s capacity to fully comprehend it, yet this imperfect instrument is still the finest tool I possess.

Science maps what it can, but its measurements are human constructs: imperfect, provisional, bound by their necessary limitations. They are like sketching starlight with a crayon—a crude approximation. Reality is something else.

We are monkeys playing with sticks.
Measuring infinite complexity is an "impossible" task.

 

[BS5711]

Our mind grasps only fragments of reality—a narrow aperture onto an infinite expanse. The universe’s complexity defies my brain’s capacity to fully comprehend it, yet this imperfect instrument is still the finest tool I possess.

Science maps what it can, but its measurements are human constructs: imperfect, provisional, bound by their necessary limitations. They are like sketching starlight with a crayon—a crude approximation. Reality is something else.

We are monkeys playing with sticks.
Measuring infinite complexity is an "impossible" task.

You want to believe that mumbo jumbo because it supports your position but when it comes to listening to recorded music we pretty well understand how it works, humans and science made it after all.

We are not marveling at the universe, we are listening with recorded music on devices that we invented, why wouldn't we understand it ?

 

[Diet Kokaine]

You want to believe that mumbo jumbo because it supports your position but when it comes to listening to recorded music we pretty well understand how it works, humans and science made it after all.

We are not marveling at the universe, we are listening with recorded music on devices that we invented, why wouldn't we understand it ?

Humility isn’t optional, it’s arithmetic.

Your scoff at “mysticism” can’t negate the hard edge of ignorance: science is still in its infancy when it comes to sound’s infinte complexity, let alone how the brain sculpts noise into meaning. We dissect frequencies with measurements, but the experience of a symphony—the way it rewires grief or joy—is a chaotic symphony of biology we’ve barely begun to decode.

Call it a “gap in knowledge” if it comforts you.
I call it a canyon.

We haven't invented anything, we've discovered some things along the way.

Mastery of the "How" is not the same as the mastery of the "Why".

 

[BS5711]

That is a nice theory to explain away the basic psychology associated with listening to recorded music on man made devices.

 

[Diet Kokaine]

That is a nice theory to explain away the basic psychology associated with listening to recorded music on man made devices.

Like I said...
Mastery of the "How" is not the same as the mastery of the "Why".

Meditate on that

Awwww shucks, meditation is more of that mumbo jumbo crap.
You already know everything and there's nothing left to learn
Never mind.

 

[2leftears]

Our mind grasps only fragments of reality—a narrow aperture onto an infinite expanse.

Our mind is also capable of imagining things that aren't real.

Whilst science doesn't know everything, we do need to use scientific methods to help us determine what is real and what is our imagination.

Someone who dogmatically believes in their own perception above all else is never going to accept a scientific methodology to help them distinguish reality from their imagination, because sometimes it will prove that it is indeed their flawed perception, not reality, which is a (to them) unacceptable outcome.

Like I said...
Mastery of the "How" is not the same as the mastery of the "Why".

Meditate on that

Ignorance of the "Why" is not the same as ignorance of the "How".

 

[Diet Kokaine]

"[Certain students] suppose that because science has penetrated the structure of the atom it can solve all the problems of the universe. ... They are known in every ... college as the most insufferable, cocksure know-it-alls. If you want to talk to them about poetry, they are likely to reply that the "emotive response" to poetry is only a conditioned reflex .... If they go on to be professional scientists, their sharp corners are rubbed down, but they undergo no fundamental change. They most decidedly are not set apart from the others by their intellectual integrity and faith, and their patient humility in front of the facts of nature.... They are uneducated, in the fullest sense of the word, and they certainly are no advertisement for the claims of science teachers."
— Anthony Standen
In Science is a Sacred Cow (1950)

 

[BS5711]

Like I said...
Mastery of the "How" is not the same as the mastery of the "Why".

Meditate on that

Awwww shucks, meditation is more of that mumbo jumbo crap.
You already know everything and there's nothing left to learn
Never mind.

I have been meditating and this was the outcome.

If science developed the means of "how" to allow us to listen to high quality recorded music without understanding the "why" can you even be sure that what you are hearing from recorded music on your man made equipment contains the information to reproduce the layers of complexity that you believe are yet to be understood ?

Perhaps the recorded and reproduced music is missing critical information that you assume is there but isn't understood, perhaps what you believe is going on when listening to recorded music on man made equipment is even more of a construct of your imaginings than we currently believe to be the case.

That sound, after all, is only recorded data captured and compiled from equipment designed and made by a science that you say doesn't even understand how we interpret sound. If science understands so little perhaps all that lovely gear you wax lyrical about is actually very poor at its job and your brain needs to fill in the gaps. Does you brain fill in the gaps the same as mine, are we even hearing the same music, can we even compare experiences if that critical mystical data is in fact not recorded by our poor quality equipment developed by a science that doesn't even understand the purpose of that equipment ?

So many questions .......

 

[Diet Kokaine]

can you even be sure that what you are hearing from recorded music on your man made equipment contains the information to reproduce the layers of complexity that you believe are yet to be understood ?

Perhaps the recorded and reproduced music is missing critical information that you assume is there but isn't understood

You’re conflating two truths.
Yes, live music is the wildfire—raw, uncaptured, breathing. Recordings are its shadow. But shadows still have texture.

The arrogance isn’t in claiming DACs differ, it’s in pretending science has mapped every neuron’s shiver when a cymbal decays. We measure THD, Frequency responses and jitter, but not why your spine ignites when a strummed chord *feels* wetter on one DAC than another.

I am right in this regard : If your ears—trained by years of wrangling sound from wood and wire—detect a gap between Device A and Device B, that gap *exists*. But it’s not magic. It’s just science hasn't figured out a way to measure what a musician or a trained ear is hearing.

**The real horseshit?**
Dismissing subjectivity as delusion. A Stradivari isn’t “better” than another because of its specs—it’s the *uncapturable* interplay of resin, wood grain/density and centuries of human hands.
DACs? Same fight. Science will catch up… or it won’t. Either way, your ears aren’t waiting for permission.

 

[BS5711]

You claim remarkable insight about what we don't understand apparently based on your own opinions, perceptions and experiences but not a lot more.

" It’s just science hasn't figured out a way to measure what a musician or a trained ear is hearing " ........ I suspect that might be the bit that is horseshit, science can measure what is being heard but of course it can't measure the emotion evoked. But an emotional experience evoked by sound and making best efforts to electronically reproduce that sound are not the same thing.

 

[Diet Kokaine]

I suspect that might be the bit that is horseshit, science can measure what is being heard but of course it can't measure the emotion evoked. But an emotional experience evoked by sound and making best efforts to electronically reproduce that sound are not the same thing.

We’re arguing past each other.
The problem is this.... why two devices, both "perfect" on paper, subjectively warp the experience of sound in ways that make one feel cold as ice and the other leaves you in tears.

It’s the arrogance of assuming today’s measurements capture every variable that shapes human perception.

Science isn’t wrong—it’s incomplete.
When you say DAC A "breathes" while DAC B "suffocates," you’re describing emergent properties of systems we don't yet understand.

They don’t sound the same.
They measure the same *under the constraints of what we’ve decided to measure*. Your tears are the outlier data. The question isn’t "Are you delusional?" It’s Why haven’t we designed tools that quantify what musicians instinctively perceive?


This isn’t mysticism. It’s a call to dig deeper.

 

[theveterans]

We’re arguing past each other.
The problem is this.... why two devices, both "perfect" on paper, subjectively warp the experience of sound in ways that make one feel cold as ice and the other leaves you in tears.

It’s the arrogance of assuming today’s measurements capture every variable that shapes human perception.

Science isn’t wrong—it’s incomplete.
When you say DAC A "breathes" while DAC B "suffocates," you’re describing emergent properties of systems we don't yet understand

They don’t sound the same.
They measure the same *under the constraints of what we’ve decided to measure*. Your tears are the outlier data. The question isn’t "Are you delusional?" It’s Why haven’t we designed tools that quantify what musicians instinctively perceive?


This isn’t mysticism. It’s a call to dig deeper.

One can always a pull the trump card DBT ABX volume matched with multimeter to +/- 0.001 dB SPL with video evidence at least 18/20 correct guesses in 3 consecutive iterations (total of 60 samples) are met, and 3 people ensuring that the test are not borked to prove that what you say DAC A "breathes" and DAC B "suffocates" is either a load of crap or not

 

[Diet Kokaine]

One can always a pull the trump card DBT ABX volume matched with multimeter to +/- 0.001 dB SPL with video evidence at least 18/20 correct guesses in 3 consecutive iterations (total of 60 samples) are met, and 3 people ensuring that the test are not borked to prove that what you say DAC A "breathes" and DAC B "suffocates" is either a load of crap or not

I've had enough of this discussion
While I value thoughtful discourse, I’ve realized that devoting my day off to unproductive debates here isn’t the best use of my time. It’s clear we’re all approaching this with entrenched perspectives, and meaningful dialogue feels unlikely at this point. Wishing everyone the best.
Planet Earth 3 in 4K HDR, with it's 24 bit audio is a wild ride.
If you haven't seen it...

 

[theveterans]

I've had enough of this discussion
While I value thoughtful discourse, I’ve realized that devoting my day off to unproductive debates here isn’t the best use of my time. It’s clear we’re all approaching this with entrenched perspectives, and meaningful dialogue feels unlikely at this point. Wishing everyone the best.
Planet Earth 3 in 4K HDR, with it's 24 bit audio is a wild ride.
If you haven't seen it...

I think you should ask the designer of DACs themselves and share their trade secrets with you about their design choices so you can find out what makes a DAC sound different than another despite being measured beyond audibility thresholds (SINAD, jitter, multitone, SINAD at 90KHz bandwidth). For example, what makes Rockna Wavedream Reference sound they way they do and how they differ to something like Topping E30 DAC. I think volume matched to +/- 0.01 dB, you should be able to distinguished between the two quite effortlessly blind just on the way they present music alone

 

[Diet Kokaine]

I think you should ask the designer of DACs themselves and share their trade secrets with you about their design choices so you can find out what makes a DAC sound different than another despite being measured beyond audibility thresholds (SINAD, jitter, multitone, SINAD at 90KHz bandwidth). For example, what makes Rockna Wavedream Reference sound they way they do and how they differ to something like Topping E30 DAC. I think volume matched to +/- 0.01 dB, you should be able to distinguished between the two quite effortlessly blind just on the way they present music alone

For the record: I could do 500 A/B tests blindfolded, at gunpoint, hung upside down, with a 60 inch rod in my you know what, and call out my last 2 DACs without a miss.

The “all DACs sound identical” crowd is usually testing them on IEMs and headphones. throw that same DAC on a pair of *actual* high-end, transparent speakers, and suddenly the differences aren’t just obvious—they’re laughably obvious.
Child’s play, really.
A 100 dollar DAC in my system is a quick recipe for bleeding ears.