Oh, come on Kiteki, you're better than that ! You can't possibly assert that V is saying the only way to measure is to perceive by ear. If that was the case, why make all the efforts to measure with the scope ?? And even if that was the case, then what's your own position ? I was under the impression that you were simply refusing measurements alltogether (and I'm not the only one it seems).
Now let's not mix the AES paper on audibility threshold and V's own reflexion, shall we ? His comments are not a pear reviewed paper, and I'm not planning on arguing on that, eventhough I find them interesting. So back to the AES paper, since you seem to dislike it, where is the research showing that some or even one person is able to hear under the level found by the AES paper ? Please give me your comment on this one, instead of dodging my question this time.
Sorry? It's NwAv saying that, not me. He's comparing the DAC1 and ODAC via [COLOR=008080]listening[/COLOR], and quoting the AES paper on [COLOR=008080]listening transparency[/COLOR], and saying op-amps all sound the same since [COLOR=FF0000]music[/COLOR] has already been poisoned by so many in the studio, not me.
Yes, you can measure a DAC separately from a transducer. That's the whole point of machines such as a scope. The webinar you've quoted earlier is showing this perfectly. The technician isn't using any speaker or headphone to make his measurements, right ?
If we don't need a transducer to make measurements, why do you insist on going through a transducer (speakers or headphones alike) ? As far as I'm concerned, they are the weakest link, in the sense that they are not perfectly reproducing the signal they're given. Then why keep them in the equation when they are not necessary ? Do we need them to measure a DAC or an amp' performance ? Let alone cables ...
Measuring a transducer? If the transducer doesn't have a perfect square-wave response then you can't hear a perfect SWR in the DAC either, is that what you're saying? Not sure if you're trying to prove transparency or disprove it.
To go further on what I was just saying just before, I'm not considering that everything can be measured, ... yet. If you've read what I wrote earlier, I was pretty much taking the same position as Maverickronin. Science is NOT a fixed body of knowledge. It was considered as such until pretty much the 18th century, and then it evolved slowly towards the model we still use know. Science used to look for truth, as you seem to be too, now it looks for what can be considered as a truth within the body of our knowledge. See the difference here ? Nothing considered science at this moment is a truth, it's only the next best thing, or if you prefer a transitional state of truth comprised within our state of knowledge.
This means that slow evolution of our knowledge is possible. Because the changes are much smaller than they used to be. You don't need to disprove a full theory, just a small portion of it. Once it was shown that an experiment's findings contradict the theory, then it's necessary to rethink the whole theory. When Maverickronin says that your side has it easy, he's right. You can actually show us wrong by having one single experiment contradict what we consider as a fact at this moment. Hence my question :
Is there any research showing that our audibility threshold is lower than what the AES paper findings show ?
As to your links. They concern transducers specifically, not DACs, amps or cables. Therefore they are irrelevant when talking about any of these, unless you consider that the only way to measure those is to go through a transducer. That's why I asked you if you were thinking so. I assumed not, because it doesn't seem like a sustainable position to me, but if you do think so, go ahead, try me.
I stopped talking about cables after the ethernet cable versus lamp cord test. It also looks like you're assuming that equipment measures everything, so the "here and here" links were valid in showing that it doesn't.
