[The Jester]

Have you been in the Sound Science forum here? You try saying you can hear the difference between DACs and see what happens. You won't get banned, but you may wish you had if you answer back with some of the regulars. Mention cables and you may get tarred and feathered.

A dog has 4 legs a head and a tail,
My cat has 4 legs a head and a tail,
Therefore my cat is a dog ?
What’s the difference ?
A few microscopic strands of DNA
Something that small and insignificant can’t make that much difference ?

 

[GuiltyRocker]

A dog has 4 legs a head and a tail,
My cat has 4 legs a head and a tail,
Therefore my cat is a dog ?
What’s the difference ?
A few microscopic strands of DNA
Something that small and insignificant can’t make that much difference ?

Nice

 

[pkny]

A dog has 4 legs a head and a tail,
My cat has 4 legs a head and a tail,
Therefore my cat is a dog ?
What’s the difference ?
A few microscopic strands of DNA
Something that small and insignificant can’t make that much difference ?

Speaking of cats and dogs. I found the line between them is blurrier behavioral wise. My tuxedo cat never meow, but she barks at me if I forget to clean her litter box. Also, she loves to play fetch & catch. There is another white cat that I'm taking care of wants me to bring him to have a walk everyday. He is a stray cat. Everyday at around 5:00 pm, he comes to my backyard, and then I'll get my MojoPoly and walk with him in the neighborhood for an hour or two. I also bring him to an empty parking lot to play fetch & catch. My wife who has cats all through her life said she's never seen cats behave that way. She thinks those cats are dogs, but in cats' bodies.

Back to the subject, two decades ago (maybe more than that. I don't remember) the so-call "science" groups said jitter doesn't matter. Because the timing differences are so small and the equipment at that time cannot measure it, so people would shouldn't be able to hear the differences. Later, with better measuring tools and methods to measure jitter, jitter became a buzz word in those groups along with the whole industry.

Fast forward to today, I feel the same thing is happening, and I believe one day the necessary of -300dB noise sharping performance will be accepted from both "science" and "listening" group.

One thing I dislike those so-call "science" group is they seem to forget one thing -- the definition of science. From a dictionary, science is a systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained. They seems to forgot observation plays an important role in science, and also listening is a kind of observation.

 

[FunkyBassMan]

Have you been in the Sound Science forum here? You try saying you can hear the difference between DACs and see what happens. You won't get banned, but you may wish you had if you answer back with some of the regulars. Mention cables and you may get tarred and feathered.

Yeah, they're all nuts there. They claim to be all science- and evidence-based, but ask them for any evidence of their central claim that people can hear differences and the only response they have is insults. The whole thing is a joke. Sad too, because actual correlation between measurements and perceived sound difference would be really great info to study.

 

[FunkyBassMan]

A dog has 4 legs a head and a tail,
My cat has 4 legs a head and a tail,
Therefore my cat is a dog ?
What’s the difference ?
A few microscopic strands of DNA
Something that small and insignificant can’t make that much difference ?

Perfect. Or:
The DNA is 99% identical.
Except one is Albert Einstein and the other is a monkey (and active ASR/Sound Science member).

 

[GuiltyRocker]

Speaking of cats and dogs. I found the line between them is blurrier behavioral wise. My tuxedo cat never meow, but she barks at me if I forget to clean her litter box. Also, she loves to play fetch & catch. There is another white cat that I'm taking care of wants me to bring him to have a walk everyday. He is a stray cat. Everyday at around 5:00 pm, he comes to my backyard, and then I'll get my MojoPoly and walk with him in the neighborhood for an hour or two. I also bring him to an empty parking lot to play fetch & catch. My wife who has cats all through her life said she's never seen cats behave that way. She thinks those cats are dogs, but in cats' bodies.

Back to the subject, two decades ago (maybe more than that. I don't remember) the so-call "science" groups said jitter doesn't matter. Because the timing differences are so small and the equipment at that time cannot measure it, so people would shouldn't be able to hear the differences. Later, with better measuring tools and methods to measure jitter, jitter became a buzz word in those groups along with the whole industry.

Fast forward to today, I feel the same thing is happening, and I believe one day the necessary of -300dB noise sharping performance will be accepted from both "science" and "listening" group.

One thing I dislike those so-call "science" group is they seem to forget one thing -- the definition of science. From a dictionary, science is a systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained. They seems to forgot observation plays an important role in science, and also listening is a kind of observation.

This is perfectly said, thanks for sharing. Yes they are distorting what science really is about, they go about as if only THEY know what science is.

 

[GuiltyRocker]

Perfect. Or:
The DNA is 99% identical.
Except one is Albert Einstein and the other is a monkey (and active ASR/Sound Science member).

Hahahahahaha

 

[AndrewOld]

Depth perception, relies on small signal linearity and resolution, improve one, and the other improves with it.

What do you mean by “depth perception”? Do you mean distance perception - ie how far something is away? Or do you mean the depth that something sounds - ie a cello sounds a foot deep say, though it might seem 10 feet away.

If you mean distance perception, what distance cues do you think are captured by stereo recording and what evidence do you have that “small signal linearity” is relevant to it?

And the same for depth - what “depth“ cues are caped by stereo recording, and what evidence is here that small signal linearity is relevant to it? And how does a sound, a cello say, or a voice, have “depth”?

As I understand it, human beings are not very good at perceiving the distance of a sound, and stereo recording and playback is even worse at reproducing accurate distance cues.

 

[Kentajalli]

What do you mean by “depth perception”? Do you mean distance perception - ie how far something is away? Or do you mean the depth that something sounds - ie a cello sounds a foot deep say, though it might seem 10 feet away.
If you mean distance perception, what distance cues do you think are captured by stereo recording and what evidence do you have that “small signal linearity” is relevant to it?
And the same for depth - what “depth“ cues are caped by stereo recording, and what evidence is here that small signal linearity is relevant to it? And how does a sound, a cello say, or a voice, have “depth”?
As I understand it, human beings are not very good at perceiving the distance of a sound, and stereo recording and playback is even worse at reproducing accurate distance cues.

Let me make myself clear.
I have no proof that a 300db noise shaper, is better at small signal linearity compared to a 200db one. Furthermore, I have no proof that small signal linearity is directly proportional to depth perception, nor do I argue that I understand how the brain ear works regarding the complexity of human interpretation of depth clues.
These are Rob Watts arguments, and sometimes, refuted by his opponents.
I merely stated what the man had said to the extent of knowledge, because it had been claimed that he had said -300db is directly audible.
Frankly, my level of education does not reach that far.
I go by what makes sense to me, though knowing what makes sense to me, may be wrong.
By faith, I tend to accept what Rob Watts says, unless I see evidence to the contrary.
He is an accomplished engineer, who has designed a unique DAC architecture from ground up, with accompanying analogue sections, that objectively rank among the top five, at least.
To me, his "claims" carry far more weight than anyone who does not even command half his expertise.
But that's me! a personal view. He gets my vote, over cheap jesters who continually mock him .
And why?
Despite all arguments, after many years, his designs produce results! perhaps one could get something similar, mass produced at lower prices, but I rather stick with Chord.
The devices are long lasting, well made, and I don't feel the need to constantly lust after this year's model.

 

[Mediahound]

Let me make myself clear.
I have no proof that a 300db noise shaper, is better at small signal linearity compared to a 200db one. Furthermore, I have no proof that small signal linearity is directly proportional to depth perception, nor do I argue that I understand how the brain ear works regarding the complexity of human interpretation of depth clues.
These are Rob Watts arguments, and sometimes, refuted by his opponents.
I merely stated what the man had said to the extent of knowledge, because it had been claimed that he had said -300db is directly audible.
Frankly, my level of education does not reach that far.
I go by what makes sense to me, though knowing what makes sense to me, may be wrong.
By faith, I tend to accept what Rob Watts says, unless I see evidence to the contrary.
He is an accomplished engineer, who has designed a unique DAC architecture from ground up, with accompanying analogue sections, that objectively rank among the top five, at least.
To me, his "claims" carry far more weight than anyone who does not even command half his expertise.
But that's me! a personal view. He gets my vote, over cheap jesters who continually mock him .
And why?
Despite all arguments, after many years, his designs produce results! perhaps one could get something similar, mass produced at lower prices, but I rather stick with Chord.
The devices are long lasting, well made, and I don't feel the need to constantly lust after this year's model.

Rob Watts after all is providing a solution that objectively conforms to the entire principle upon which PCM audio is based. And this can be tested and demonstrated as he does in his presentations. In the end, this can also be heard in his DACs.

 

[Uberding]

Speaking of cats and dogs. I found the line between them is blurrier behavioral wise. My tuxedo cat never meow, but she barks at me if I forget to clean her litter box. Also, she loves to play fetch & catch. There is another white cat that I'm taking care of wants me to bring him to have a walk everyday. He is a stray cat. Everyday at around 5:00 pm, he comes to my backyard, and then I'll get my MojoPoly and walk with him in the neighborhood for an hour or two. I also bring him to an empty parking lot to play fetch & catch. My wife who has cats all through her life said she's never seen cats behave that way. She thinks those cats are dogs, but in cats' bodies.

Back to the subject, two decades ago (maybe more than that. I don't remember) the so-call "science" groups said jitter doesn't matter. Because the timing differences are so small and the equipment at that time cannot measure it, so people would shouldn't be able to hear the differences. Later, with better measuring tools and methods to measure jitter, jitter became a buzz word in those groups along with the whole industry.

Fast forward to today, I feel the same thing is happening, and I believe one day the necessary of -300dB noise sharping performance will be accepted from both "science" and "listening" group.

One thing I dislike those so-call "science" group is they seem to forget one thing -- the definition of science. From a dictionary, science is a systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained. They seems to forgot observation plays an important role in science, and also listening is a kind of observation.

Indeed.
It brings to mind amplifier design in the 1970s (80s maybe?)
At that time Total Harmonic Distortion specs were seen as the chief measure of a good amplifier.
Low harmonic distortion specs sold amps.
Then (if I remember correctly) designers figured out that adding more negative feedback lowered THD to near zero.
And many of those amps sounded awful. But they sold because specs.
Fast forward to now and we have SINAD as the significant variable and companies (One in particular, beloved at ASR) designing DACs principally for specs not sound.
Are they the best sounding DACs? I think not.

 

[GuiltyRocker]

Indeed.
It brings to mind amplifier design in the 1970s (80s maybe?)
At that time Total Harmonic Distortion specs were seen as the chief measure of a good amplifier.
Low harmonic distortion specs sold amps.
Then (if I remember correctly) designers figured out that adding more negative feedback lowered THD to near zero.
And many of those amps sounded awful. But they sold because specs.
Fast forward to now and we have SINAD as the significant variable and companies (One in particular, beloved at ASR) designing DACs principally for specs not sound.
Are they the best sounding DACs? I think not.

Excellent points.

 

[jagwap]

The thing is, measurements matter, and they are important. But which measurements? As stated above there are many opinions.

The key is to take the entire system. There is nothing wrong with aiming for low THD and IMD. Going for large DNR and low noise. But if your system is circulating large ground currents between units destroying those figures and many others, there is no point.

 

[AndrewOld]

Let me make myself clear.
I have no proof that a 300db noise shaper, is better at small signal linearity compared to a 200db one. Furthermore, I have no proof that small signal linearity is directly proportional to depth perception, nor do I argue that I understand how the brain ear works regarding the complexity of human interpretation of depth clues.
These are Rob Watts arguments, and sometimes, refuted by his opponents.
I merely stated what the man had said to the extent of knowledge, because it had been claimed that he had said -300db is directly audible.
Frankly, my level of education does not reach that far.
I go by what makes sense to me, though knowing what makes sense to me, may be wrong.
By faith, I tend to accept what Rob Watts says, unless I see evidence to the contrary.
He is an accomplished engineer, who has designed a unique DAC architecture from ground up, with accompanying analogue sections, that objectively rank among the top five, at least.
To me, his "claims" carry far more weight than anyone who does not even command half his expertise.
But that's me! a personal view. He gets my vote, over cheap jesters who continually mock him .
And why?
Despite all arguments, after many years, his designs produce results! perhaps one could get something similar, mass produced at lower prices, but I rather stick with Chord.
The devices are long lasting, well made, and I don't feel the need to constantly lust after this year's model.

But what do you mean by "depth perception"? Do you mean distance? Or do you mean that a sound source appears to be say two feet deep, while its distance may be 20 feet? Or something else?

I can't see how you can discuss "depth perception" without being able to say what it is.

 

[Kentajalli]

But what do you mean by "depth perception"? Do you mean distance? Or do you mean that a sound source appears to be say two feet deep, while its distance may be 20 feet? Or something else?

I can't see how you can discuss "depth perception" without being able to say what it is.

Yes, I am talking about a guitar being 20 feet thick.
I thought that was obvious.