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.
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
15 16 17 18
  1. kiteki
    I posted some answers in the other thread.
    I'm not interested in typing all night on h-f just to untwist users like frenchbat twisting my comments.
    I exploded the analogy to make it more factual since it was "obfuscating the real issue", and then instead of anyone dissecting it, it continues to "since you reject all science..." and then "since you reject all ABX..."
    Do you think anyone would assert that?
    I've posted more measurements in the other thread than anyone else, actually.
    "The AES paper", I have no idea which paper you're referring to.  If you want to tell me something like all sound is THD+N, and no one can hear THD+N under 80dB, then you've assumed everything which sound is and defined your own parameters, which is not scientific at all, so I don't need to show you "one person" which can hear a difference within your personal very subjective parameter system.
    The paper I (apparently) dislike is the Meyer & Moran study which has been contradicted by several other studies such as this one - http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=15398
    The thread I linked you to earlier, on the first page in the sixth post EthanWiner says subliminal advertising is a myth, is that scientific?  No, it's a subjective iron grid (imho).  With intuition, experience and creativity etc., you perceive that subliminal advertising could exist and work, and then with science, you (eventually) discover it - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811911011529

    Subliminal audio stimuli

    There were too few studies to complete a meta-analysis on this sub-category (n = 3), however, all studies were similar in that they examined how the brain responds to changes in a subliminal auditory stimulus. The left lateral cerebellum, left superior temporal gyrus and left insular cortex were most significantly activated in response to subliminal auditory changes. However, in one study, repetition of a voice was shown to reduce insular cortex activation (Kouider et al., 2010). Thus, regions associated with speech production (Broca's area), speech comprehension (Wernicke's area) and somatosensory responses seem to be activated independently of conscious awareness. These regions might be particularly susceptible to heightened activation during auditory hallucinations that are perceived to be independent of conscious volition, as experienced by, for example, those with schizophrenia.
    I'm not saying OPA627 has subliminal performance, however... that is a novel idea.
    In the O2 thread I asked if anyone has experimented with op-amp's in the O2 yet.  I didn't receive any answers so it looks like this so called 'science' is not very keen on experimentation or clarification.
    I also posted a comment earlier that if there was a Foobar ABX comparator which could select the DAC at random connected via two USB ports into the same amplifier or stereo receiver with a Y cable then that would be a useful tool in comparing the ODAC to other DAC's as not many have the sophistication to set up an ABX (and the interest level seems ghostily low).
    As per the subliminal advertising evidence you report your experience and ideas first, you look for the data later.  If something is not yet evidenced does that render it untrue?  I am looking for truths.
    If I'm not being scentific you can continue on with your pseudo-science DAC (PSDAC).
  2. maverickronin
    I don't understand anything you post any more...
  3. thune
    I read and appreciate your attempts to demonstrate to the dogmatic objectivists that their beliefs are as unscientific and fundamentalist as their straw-man mischaracterizations of the subjectivists they ridicule.
  4. BlindInOneEar
    Wow.  Now you've got to admit, this really pegs the irony meter.
  5. frenchbat
    Oh Dear ...
    Ok for the reference :
    This illustrates quite well what is the consensus on audibility threshold. I do apologize that it is a bit old, as most of the studies listed in here are far from new. But that's still the consensus ... Now you also have some studies pointing out to bone conduction audibility down to -110dB. But I have no idea how that can be translated into headphones, CIEM possibly, especially the acrylic type.

    As to pseudo-science, this is spot on ! I suggest you go and read the wikipedia entry on K. Popper :
    Especially the part explaining about refutability, which I was loosely quoting a few posts before. Even Einstein had to go through the process I have described to be recognized when he decided to revolutionize the field of physics. He didn't go around claiming that Newton was absolutely and totally wrong, he simply included it in his own theory, thus providing a better explanation for the phenomenon described by Newton.

    I wish you good luck finding truth(s), when nobody is actually looking for it. As Maverickronin said, you'll have to start from the very beginning. It would be a fascinating journey, but I don't have the money to pursue this, unfortunately.

    Lastly, the subliminal part could be an interesting line of thought, but you'll have to link the subliminal part to conscious perception. AFAIK nobody's done that, because the main line of thought on subliminal perception is to make a link with unconscious/conscious behaviour, not conscious perception as in critical judgment. There's a concept frontier between the two that is probably difficult to cross.
  6. cbk9811
    It's crazy that "we" are measuring the headphones and amps to within the threshold of human hearing and then having debates about how these things sound. When the most important part of he entire equation is the human element. Since all the "science" that is being introduced in the arguments, should it not be reasonable to also post whatever your corresponding air conduction & bone conduction audio gram test results maybe? And then make a reasonable decision based on facts? Ughhhhhhhh........

    Just saying......
    Digital-Pride likes this.
  7. AKG240mkII
    Yeah, damn brainiacs .
    My gut tells me silver must sound cold, what do I need stupid math, science and reading for ?
    Where is the 'human element' in a wire with gain ?
    The size of your ears,age etc etc have absolutely no bearing on how a transducer in reality performs when causing air-molecules to vibrate .
    You are grasping at the last straw . You DO seem to understand that the science is 'probably right', yet you claim it doesn't matter because of the 'human element' ?
    Sounds like a Palin-creationist claiming carbon-14 dating is 'fake' . Enjoy your harmonic valve-distortion .
    Docks likes this.
  8. Digital-Pride
    Woah.  Slow down there buddy.  Let's not muck up this thread with politics.  I think CBK's point was a valid one.  While objective measurements are important, I do however feel that the science aspect of audio is dominating the discussion a little too much.  Music listening is more about how it moves and draws in the listener and not so much about the ones and zeros behind it in my opinion.
  9. kiteki
    "in reality"
    ...there are noble intentions involved in the pursuit of a transparent amplifier and transparent DAC, with very high price / performance ratio, and telling very innocent consumers to stop buying very expensive cables.
    Also I think students that want to make an audio investment, will be much happier with a Clip+ and Sony MDR-7550, rather than a Hifiman HM-601 and Skullycandy Ink'd, etc.
    All of that is very positive.
    It's when you start saying measuring audio is like carbon-14 dating ...
    I wish I could look at all the facts presented nicely on my ViewSonic, drink some Kentucky dry and laugh at all the fairy tales~
    Instead I want to believe in fairy tales and take scattershots at science without saying anything concrete.
    1.  Why do people working at industries making op-amps actually say that x high-end op-amp sounds better than y? - http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/solid-state/132471-national-opamp-inflation.html
    2.  Why does NOS measure better than OS? - http://www.metrum-acoustics.nl/sample__squarewave.html
    3.  Why do products like the Apple earbud and Stax SR-009 look far too similar on paper? (i.e. if you blanked out the names of the products, and only look at the data, not a single human can tell you how the data will sound "in reality")
    Data is supposed to be like squeezing Colgate and expecting toothpaste, if it's Total.
  10. maverickronin
  11. mikeaj
    I haven't been keeping up with this thread, but three questions are easy.
    1.  Because they're making money selling those op amps.  Also, if you have to pass through lots and lots of them, the degradation starts adding up.  There's a market for "better" in many scenarios, but that doesn't necessarily mean that better is required.  People want to design things that are better, for a sense of accomplishment as well as design wins / sales.  To make the performance even better, they don't need to investigate whether or not improvements are actually audible for individual pieces.  It's not really relevant to the chip makers.
    2.  Obviously it depends on more than just using oversampling or not?  But anyway, I'm not sure where you're going by "measuring better" since I think you just linked some square waves and really short impulses? Surely you're not eyeballing for some kind of average distance or mean-squared error to ideal?  Good measurements are one thing; incorrect interpretations are another.  
    3.  They don't, unless you have no idea what you're looking for.  For one, the earbud distortion measurements are way higher, and the frequency response is significantly different.  Or did I miss seeing something way different than what's on InnerFidelity?  I don't think anybody's implied that the average person (or even an expert) can really understand what a headphone sounds like just by looking at the kinds of limited measured data that's available.  You need way more graphs (approaching infinitely many, for a complete characterization), maybe more experience interpreting them and dealing with previous headphones and previous graphs, maybe a better test setup, and maybe a test dummy that replicates all relevant properties of your anatomy.  For some reasonable insights, what we have is already sufficient unless you're clueless.
    On second thought, I'm getting very convinced it's not worth the effort to respond.
    maverickronin likes this.
  12. kiteki
    1.  Clearly it seems you didn't look at the link, since he was fired from National, so what interest does he have in selling more op amps?  If you read the link you'd notice National has a listening room with high-end speakers and the like... what for?  It's all on paper and in their instruments, clearly a listening room is completely unnecessary!
    2.  Asking how the Metrum Acoustics Duo / Octave compares in a dScope to the ODAC is a very real and fair question since the dScope is the life-blood of the ODAC isn't it?  You averted the question here, averting questions isn't going to win any favours for the ODAC.  (No I'm not saying it's only OS versus NOS that should have been between the lines).
    3.  "I don't think anybody's implied that the average person (or even an expert) can really understand what a headphone sounds like just by looking at the kinds of limited measured data that's available."  Look at posts #202 and #203 immediately above you.
    "For some reasonable insights, what we have is already sufficient unless you're clueless."  Apparently the Apple earbud versus Stax didn't come across like it should, different frequency response and distortion?  I'm not sure how adjusting an equalizer on the Stax to make it look like the Apple and adding lots of distortion will suddenly make them sound alike, can you answer this scientifically please?
  13. maverickronin
    1)  Measure the impulse response of both on a HATS.
    2)  Create a convolution function to turn the 009's impulse into the iBud's.
    3)  Incorporate the function into a DSP.
    4)  Play music through the DSP and listen on the 009s.
    That will get you pretty damn close.  If I have to explain why it won't work the the other way then there is no hope for you...
  14. kiteki
    So what's really important is actually IR then.  Now... back to the question on the ODAC versus the Metrum Duo (€199) or Octave in IR / SWR...
  15. maverickronin
    If you can do the math in your head.
    It also makes a few assumptions about physical systems which are almost true but not not quite completely true so it isn't prefect.
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
15 16 17 18

Share This Page