Understanding the Role of DACs in a Simple Audio Setup

[bigshot]

I don't have any need to raise this discussion's level from what it is. Why should I?

I think this is a clear statement of where this person plans to take the argument. If I was a mod, I’d take him aside and offer him the option of arguing on point, or a thread ban.

And I’d expect the latter to be what ends up happening.

 

[megabigeye]

@gregorio, et al.,
The other day somebody mentioned that you sh/could write an article addressing some (or all) of the common audiophile myths. This current interaction with CopperFox is the perfect example of why I think that'd be a good idea. Yes, I'm sure it would take a lot of your time and probably a fair amount of effort to create, but in the long run I think it'd save you a lot of time and headache. Rather than engaging and arguing with every person battling against the facts, you could simply point them to the article and report them as trolling (or whatever) as necessary.
I think an article like that could potentially be better than refuting everything a person says, because it could be presented as straightforward facts and information rather than feeling (or becoming) personal. Hopefully in the long run, because people aren't feeling attacked and belittled, they'd be more receptive to learning the facts.

Anyway, those are just my thoughts.

Edit: a few further thoughts...
The article could be locked so that it doesn't become a dumping ground for trolling and misinformation.
You (or whoever writes it) could write it in advance before posting it. This way you can take your time without worrying someone is going to start arguing before you're finished.
It could/should include citations.
Each myth/chapter/section could be a new post that could be easily linked later.

 

[Shawnb]

Everyone hears different. When taking measurements, you're not measuring how your ears are hearing it, so at best any readings are a guide and nothing more.

 

[2leftears]

Everyone hears different. When taking measurements, you're not measuring how your ears are hearing it, so at best any readings are a guide and nothing more.

That is a paradox, if not a false argument. You need sound measurements in the first place to be able to conclude that people perceive sounds different.

Sound measurements are not just a guide; they are a scientifically well-established point of reference.

 

[eq1849]

Correct you don’t but then you’re not, you’re in fact doing the exact opposite. “This discussion’s level” is based on science/facts which can all be reliably substantiated, making false assertions and stating “bull” is obviously not substantiated at all and therefore your posts are way below “this discussion’s level” and way below what is acceptable in a science discussion forum, that’s why!

Wrong, if colourations are at say -95dB and peak playback level is say 85dBSPL, how is that colouration audible?

There’s no explanation of why a null test “would do” what a null test does? Don’t you even know what a null test is?

G

Failing(nulling)one of your listening tests, since they are negatively biased, with an expected outcome of null, provides rather weak statistical evidence I think.

Are you suggesting that nulling is strong conclusive evidence?

 

[eq1849]

That is a paradox, if not a false argument. You need sound measurements in the first place to be able to conclude that people perceive sounds different.

Sound measurements are not just a guide; they are a scientifically well-established point of reference.

I don’t have issues with measuring equipment.

 

[BS5711]

As it pertains to the question at hand, do DACs color sound, then if one believes that human hearing is fully understood then yes all the arguments are likely a 100% valid and the issue of producing that aforementioned goal of a sound indistinguishable from hearing it first hand, lies in other parts of the audio chain. But as I find there are continually new discoveries on how we hear, I say "believes" as the knowledge it was based on turned out to be incomplete.

Where does this stuff come from ?

Science not fully understanding how humans hear is a common argument from "audiophiles" who are looking for an explanation as to why they PERCEIVE differences in sound with different equipment when science shows measurements that indicate there is no difference to HEAR.

It seems the real reason why "audiophiles" PERCEIVE differences is all in the head, ones expectations etc messing with reality.

The term "audiophile" amuses me. To me it infers someone that wants to understand audio and yet so many bury their head in the sand when it comes to genuinely wanting to understand it. In fact they seem happier believing myths perpetuated by the industry and other "audiophiles" and look for things like the above to explain what they hear when what they PERCEIVE contradicts science. Psychology has an answer but it is an answer they don't want to accept.

 

[BS5711]

Failing(nulling)one of your listening tests, since they are negatively biased, with an expected outcome of null, provides rather weak statistical evidence I think.

Are you suggesting that nulling is strong conclusive evidence?

I don't think you understand what a null test is.

It is not a listening test but a measured comparison of the output of two devices essentially subtracting one from the other so that if they are identical there will be no sound left to hear.

I didn't watch this but I imagine it is at least basically explanatory of what a null test is:

 

[bigshot]

@gregorio, et al.,
The other day somebody mentioned that you sh/could write an article addressing some (or all) of the common audiophile myths. This current interaction with CopperFox is the perfect example of why I think that'd be a good idea.

This Fox guy wouldn’t read it. Gregorio writes an article every time he replies.

 

[sander99]

I didn't watch this but I imagine it is at least basically explanatory of what a null test is:

Unfortunately his story is a bit "out-of-focus" I would say. And using the comparison between a WAV and an MP3 as an example is not such a good idea. He should have explained that If 2 signals can be nulled that implies that there is no audible difference, but if 2 signals can not be nulled it does not automatically imply that there is an audible difference!

 

[BS5711]

Unfortunately his story is a bit "out-of-focus" I would say. And using the comparison between a WAV and an MP3 as an example is not such a good idea. He should have explained that If 2 signals can be nulled that implies that there is no audible difference, but if 2 signals can not be nulled it does not automatically imply that there is an audible difference!

I probably should have watched it first, specifics aside hopefully it explains in principle what a null test is.

 

[Shawnb]

That is a paradox, if not a false argument. You need sound measurements in the first place to be able to conclude that people perceive sounds different.

Sound measurements are not just a guide; they are a scientifically well-established point of reference.

They are a guide to what sounds better. They are not the be all end all of how it sounds.
Specially when you're at the TOTL gear and the difference is negligible. One measurement is not inherently better

 

[CopperFox]

As “wonderful” as calling “bull” on a test when you don’t even know what the test does?!

The person here who does not know what said test does, and particularly what it does not do is you. Fortunately the ignore function is now engaged.

 

[bigshot]

The person here who does not know what said test does, and particularly what it does not do is you. Fortunately the ignore function is now engaged.

Please ignore me too because I’ll probably be correcting your ill informed postings as well. We’ll be happy to point out foolishness behind your back to the rest of the group. In fact, you might as well ignore all of the replies from Sound Science members, because it’s clear you don’t know what you’re talking about and you’re supremely confident of that ignorance of the facts. All of us will be chiming in.

 

[CopperFox]

Please ignore me too because I’ll probably be correcting your ill informed postings as well. We’ll be happy to point out foolishness behind your back to the rest of the group. In fact, you might as well ignore all of the replies from Sound Science members, because it’s clear you don’t know what you’re talking about and you’re supremely confident of that ignorance of the facts. All of us will be chiming in.

Nah there are lots of people in the community who are ablle to hold a rational conversation in a coherent manner.
Some aren't even super enthusiastic at seeing magical properties in lacking data.