1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.

    Dismiss Notice

The Hopelessly Derailed ODAC/Objective DAC Anticipation/Discussion Thread

Discussion in 'Sound Science' started by maverickronin, Apr 29, 2012.
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
14 15 16 17 18
  1. maverickronin
    The point of analogies is to make things easier to understand, not to obfuscate the real issues...
  2. frenchbat
    How's that relevant to cable measurement ? Are you saying that the only way to "measure" is to perceive by hear ? I'll assume you don't, and go on.
    Although I do agree that you can't translate the "actual sound" from something in an audio file, the differences (assuming there are some) are there. Again, assuming the system is the same for all the recordings, then you'll end up with a file that presents you the variations. The whole point is to have an experiment that's able to show (or not) differences. Scientific experiences are not pretending to present you the reality, that wouldn't be science but magic.
    Scientific experiences' purpose is to point out, single out a phenomenon, through a system that's described in great length so that anyone can repeat it, and if needed better it. Let's take quantum level in physics, the apparatus itself is influencing on the result, because the phenomenon is so small in the first place, but that doesn't invalidate the first experiences done, it only called for a better apparatus.
    Again this is irrelevant to our discussion. We don't need to go through a transducer (speaker or headphones) to make measurement, or do we ? It's a matter of rationality, if you measure through a transducer, what you end up measuring is the transducer, not the rest of the system. You can't possibly think the less accurate link in the chain (the transducer) is necessary to measure the most accurate ones, right (at least when it comes to reproduction) ?
  3. stv014
    It looks like obfuscation is exactly what is intended: "audio is infinitely complex, we do not understand it, all tests and measurements are flawed (except those that back up my agenda), therefore in all this confusion and uncertainty I might just as well be right". [​IMG]
  4. temporaryname
    I can't wait for this objective v subjective debate to be over. Not that I don't want the truth to be come out, I do. But I feel like the majority of this debate comes from misunderstandings, which are unfortunate.
    Both extremes annoy the hell out of me. I'm talking about uneducated NwAvGuy fanboys and deluded audiophools (especially Guttenberg, I get the feeling he must be either very well compensated for making it his agenda or he's trying to preserve a shred of his imaginary credibility). The way I see it, if objective measurements help to pull things together and hold the audiophile industry to a standard, what's not to like? Why argue so intensely against either side? I'm not pointing any fingers here, just making a point.
    Personally, I'm glad that there's someone out there fighting for the little guy. I don't have that much disposable income but that shouldn't mean I can't have access to transparent audio. Now I can have a great audio system and afford my first car. So can't we just enjoy what improvements objective methodology and education bring to the table?
  5. Anaxilus
    This is why they should be avoided.  [​IMG]
  6. RonO
    Today I'm trying out the new JDS ODAC PCB to a my Speedballed Bottlehead Crack -> HD-650.  So far I'm impressed with the ODAC, it's going to be a super bang for the buck DAC.  I'm considering mounting the PCB inside or on the back of the Crack, to make it an all-in-one.  My other DAC is the WM8471 from my Audio-gd Fun.  They both sound great, not a clear winner.  Since the A-gd uses op-amps in the output stage, you can shape the sound of the 8471 with your opa selection.  The ODAC has no such thing, and seems to sound a bit more detailed up top. Bass might be deeper, but this would be influenced by the OPA in the output stage.  I'll let the ODAC run in a bit and see if anything changes, but ootb it sounds very good. 
  7. kiteki
    If I want to compare the ODAC versus any other DAC, let's call it q, need some headphones, which is more transparent?
    ODAC vs qDAC -> Skullcandy Mix Master Mike
    ODAC vs qDAC -> Audio Technica A2000X
    Is one of them totally transparent? y/n.  Is the total system then transparent? y/n.
    If I want to listen to the op-amp JRC 072D in my DAC, which is a more direct path?
    DAC w/072D -> A2000X
    DAC w072D -> Amplifier with AD797x2 -> AD8610 -> A2000X
    If I record my amplifier via a sound-card with A/DC, upload it, you record yours via your A/DC, upload it, I download both, listen to them on a Clip+->Etymotic HF5, what am I now listening to?
    -Maverick's sound-card
    -kiteki's amplifier
    -Etymotic HF5
    -Maverick's A/DC
    -kiteki's A/DC
    -the capacitors in maverick's sound-card
    -the AD8610 in kiteki's
    -the coffee filter
    -I can't hear anything at all, everything in audio is totally transparent, especially the Clip+->HF5, and my visual acuity.
    Filming a movie in a cinema, taking a photo of a photo, listening to mineral water in tonic water, etc.
  8. kiteki
    Sorry?  It's NwAv saying that, not me.  He's comparing the DAC1 and ODAC via listening, and quoting the AES paper on listening transparency, and saying op-amps all sound the same since music has already been poisoned by so many in the studio, not me.
    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.
    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.
  9. maverickronin
    Since you've pretty much decided that nothing the scientific method has demonstrated about audio reproduction is actually true you're going to have to start from scratch with some very basic experiments. to determine what matters and what doesn't.  I could tell you how I'd do it, but all the assumptions built into the experiment would be conclusions from previous experiments that you reject so you would reject my idea for testing as well.
    If you think that you know something new then demonstrate it.  That's how science works.  I'm defending the null hypothesis and not even an infinite number of experiments can ever prove actually prove the null hypothesis, they can only fail to reject it.  No number of failed listening tests will ever demonstrate that no differences can be detected, only that no differences were detected.  Assuming you're right, your side has it pretty easy.  One successful pilot study of something previously though to be inaudible and couple independent replications and suddenly most of the rest of us will agree with you.
    Make a hypothesis, a claim that can be falsified by an experiment, and test it.  I'll even try and help you out designing the procedure.
  10. frenchbat
    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.

    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 ...

    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.

  11. Digital-Pride
    Gentlemen(and ladies), let's agree to disagree.  Can we have more ODAC impressions please?
  12. maverickronin
    I like mine.  It's clear, detailed and spacious.
    Or maybe that's just the expectation bias talking...
  13. Digital-Pride
    Nice.  How does it compare to other DACs you own or have heard in the past?
  14. maverickronin
    Compared to the DAC in my Leckerton UHA-4 or Cowon D2+ I think the treble might be a little cleaner and thus less fatiguing.  Maybe a bit clearer than the single ended out from my Focusrite Scarlett 2i2.
  15. Digital-Pride
    Thanks for the info Maverickronin.
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
14 15 16 17 18

Share This Page