| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
DAC Differences
I just had an opportunity to compare, in my own system, several current
USB DACs. One was the new DragonFly by Audioquest, the next was the Ayre Acoustics QB-9 and the third was the PS Audio PerfectWave II. Anybody who thinks that DACs all sound the same, is either deluding himself (or herself) or simply can't hear. I realize that there have been a number of fairly high-profile "studies" performed whereby the results of ABX tests show "conclusively" that all DACs sound alike. But using the same computer to feed all three DACs from the computer's USB ports (all three are Asynchronous USB using the same TI USB receiver chip) and carefully matching levels, I have found that they all sound different, and while all are good, the Ayre QB-9, even though it's only 24/96 KHz (as is the DragonFly) is head and shoulders above the other two. The DragonFly is an excellent product, but the Ayre simply has more "there" there. For the first time, I was able to notice that on a jazz album that I have had in vinyl form, CD, and SACD and now via a 24/96 download from HDTRacks, and have been listening to (in one form or another) for probably close to 30 years, the pianist is playing a Fender-Rhodes electric piano (or something very similar) and not the Brazilian "tinpanola" that I always assumed he was playing. I couldn't tell the difference with with the vinyl record, the CD or the SACD and couldn't tell it from any of the DACs i've had on hand until I played the 24/96 FLAC file through the Ayre Acoustics QB-9. Now I can hear quite readily and easily that the piano is a mechanical-electric one! I have heard other differences too that are either glossed over by lesser DACs or not audible on vinyl. Clearly the Ayre Acoustics QB-9 is the best DAC this audiophile has ever heard. Quite a revelation for me. Audio_Empire |
|
#2
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
DAC Differences
Audio_Empire wrote:
I just had an opportunity to compare, in my own system, several current USB DACs. One was the new DragonFly by Audioquest, the next was the Ayre Acoustics QB-9 and the third was the PS Audio PerfectWave II. Anybody who thinks that DACs all sound the same, is either deluding himself (or herself) or simply can't hear. I realize that there have been a number of fairly high-profile "studies" performed whereby the results of ABX tests show "conclusively" that all DACs sound alike. Oh, come on, no-one is saying that. What has been said is that if components don't sound alike there is some good reason such as gross differences of level, frequency response, noise, or distortion -- all things that can easily be seen on a spectrum analyzer. This isn't surprising: the ear is a spectrum analyzer. If there ever is a difference detected in a listening test that can't be explained in terms of such differences it'll be time for physiologists to do some new fundamental research. Maybe there's a Nobel Prize in it. Andrew. |
|
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
DAC Differences
Andrew Haley wrote:
Audio_Empire wrote: I just had an opportunity to compare, in my own system, several current USB DACs. One was the new DragonFly by Audioquest, the next was the Ayre Acoustics QB-9 and the third was the PS Audio PerfectWave II. Anybody who thinks that DACs all sound the same, is either deluding himself (or herself) or simply can't hear. I realize that there have been a number of fairly high-profile "studies" performed whereby the results of ABX tests show "conclusively" that all DACs sound alike. Oh, come on, no-one is saying that. What has been said is that if components don't sound alike there is some good reason such as gross differences of level, frequency response, noise, or distortion -- all things that can easily be seen on a spectrum analyzer. This isn't surprising: the ear is a spectrum analyzer. And not a very good one at that, for a variety of reasons, notable drift, susceptibility to external (and often) unrelated influences, poor dynamic range, long overload recovery, high noise, poor resolution, high masking, ... -- +--------------------------------+ + Dick Pierce | + Professional Audio Development | +--------------------------------+ |
|
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
DAC Differences
In article ,
Dick Pierce wrote: Andrew Haley wrote: Audio_Empire wrote: I just had an opportunity to compare, in my own system, several current USB DACs. One was the new DragonFly by Audioquest, the next was the Ayre Acoustics QB-9 and the third was the PS Audio PerfectWave II. Anybody who thinks that DACs all sound the same, is either deluding himself (or herself) or simply can't hear. I realize that there have been a number of fairly high-profile "studies" performed whereby the results of ABX tests show "conclusively" that all DACs sound alike. Oh, come on, no-one is saying that. What has been said is that if components don't sound alike there is some good reason such as gross differences of level, frequency response, noise, or distortion -- all things that can easily be seen on a spectrum analyzer. This isn't surprising: the ear is a spectrum analyzer. And not a very good one at that, for a variety of reasons, notable drift, susceptibility to external (and often) unrelated influences, poor dynamic range, long overload recovery, high noise, poor resolution, high masking, ... Not to mention expectational bias. I have a friend who swears that an AudioQuest USB cable with a "bias" battery attached makes a big, positive difference when swapped in place of a standard computer-type USB cable, even though he KNOWS, on an intellectual level, that this is scientifically impossible. Here's a question... What the hell is a battery connected to a cable with ONE lead (not even a return lead to complete the circuit) supposed to do anyway? No wonder they say that the battery lasts "for years". with only one terminal connected to anything, battery life would be, essentially, the battery's shelf life. Now I'm only a poor electronics engineer, but I was taught at a power supply (or battery) with one lead left floating, is a disconnected battery or power supply/ Can someone please explain to me what this "bias" on a cable is supposed to accomplish? BTW, I saw a printed ad recently for cables from a company called Shunyata Research (or something similar). I found it almost funny because the ad shows a series of three supposed oscilloscope photos. The top one shows a square-wave labeled "the source" signal (ostensibly using a low-reactance real oscilloscope probe/lead) and it is properly square. The next picture shows, ostensibly, the same signal through a "competitor's" cable and it is quite rounded on the leading edge of the square wave showing a slow rise time. The final picture shows the ad's product square wave and it is a lot less rounded off on the rising edge (having a much shorter rise time). This is real impressive UNTIL one looks closely at the oscilloscope data that is listed next to the three oscilloscope traces. The frequency at which these pictures were made was ONE-HUNDRED MEGAHERTZ! It certainly shows that the Shunyata Research cables are superior to their competition as FM lead in wire from the antenna, but I'm at a loss as to what relevance this has to either tested sample as an audio interconnect! Who do they think that they are fooling, anyway? |
|
#5
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
DAC Differences
In article ,
Audio_Empire wrote: In article , Dick Pierce wrote: Andrew Haley wrote: Audio_Empire wrote: I just had an opportunity to compare, in my own system, several current USB DACs. One was the new DragonFly by Audioquest, the next was the Ayre Acoustics QB-9 and the third was the PS Audio PerfectWave II. Anybody who thinks that DACs all sound the same, is either deluding himself (or herself) or simply can't hear. I realize that there have been a number of fairly high-profile "studies" performed whereby the results of ABX tests show "conclusively" that all DACs sound alike. Oh, come on, no-one is saying that. What has been said is that if components don't sound alike there is some good reason such as gross differences of level, frequency response, noise, or distortion -- all things that can easily be seen on a spectrum analyzer. This isn't surprising: the ear is a spectrum analyzer. And not a very good one at that, for a variety of reasons, notable drift, susceptibility to external (and often) unrelated influences, poor dynamic range, long overload recovery, high noise, poor resolution, high masking, ... Not to mention expectational bias. I have a friend who swears that an AudioQuest USB cable with a "bias" battery attached makes a big, positive difference when swapped in place of a standard computer-type USB cable, even though he KNOWS, on an intellectual level, that this is scientifically impossible. Here's a question... What the hell is a battery connected to a cable with ONE lead (not even a return lead to complete the circuit) supposed to do anyway? No wonder they say that the battery lasts "for years". with only one terminal connected to anything, battery life would be, essentially, the battery's shelf life. Now I'm only a poor electronics engineer, but I was taught at a power supply (or battery) with one lead left floating, is a disconnected battery or power supply/ Can someone please explain to me what this "bias" on a cable is supposed to accomplish? It attracts money ... Isaac |
|
#6
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
DAC Differences
In article , isw
wrote: In article , Audio_Empire wrote: In article , Dick Pierce wrote: Andrew Haley wrote: Audio_Empire wrote: I just had an opportunity to compare, in my own system, several current USB DACs. One was the new DragonFly by Audioquest, the next was the Ayre Acoustics QB-9 and the third was the PS Audio PerfectWave II. Anybody who thinks that DACs all sound the same, is either deluding himself (or herself) or simply can't hear. I realize that there have been a number of fairly high-profile "studies" performed whereby the results of ABX tests show "conclusively" that all DACs sound alike. Oh, come on, no-one is saying that. What has been said is that if components don't sound alike there is some good reason such as gross differences of level, frequency response, noise, or distortion -- all things that can easily be seen on a spectrum analyzer. This isn't surprising: the ear is a spectrum analyzer. And not a very good one at that, for a variety of reasons, notable drift, susceptibility to external (and often) unrelated influences, poor dynamic range, long overload recovery, high noise, poor resolution, high masking, ... Not to mention expectational bias. I have a friend who swears that an AudioQuest USB cable with a "bias" battery attached makes a big, positive difference when swapped in place of a standard computer-type USB cable, even though he KNOWS, on an intellectual level, that this is scientifically impossible. Here's a question... What the hell is a battery connected to a cable with ONE lead (not even a return lead to complete the circuit) supposed to do anyway? No wonder they say that the battery lasts "for years". with only one terminal connected to anything, battery life would be, essentially, the battery's shelf life. Now I'm only a poor electronics engineer, but I was taught at a power supply (or battery) with one lead left floating, is a disconnected battery or power supply/ Can someone please explain to me what this "bias" on a cable is supposed to accomplish? It attracts money ... Isaac That's about the best (and probably the most accurate) answer to that question that anyone could possibly give, Isaac. I can't think of any reason why this would work and the company's explanation of "polarizing the dielectric" to achieve better conductivity of the cable and to reduce dielectric absorption makes no sense. you can't polarize anything with a single battery pole. |
|
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
DAC Differences
"Andrew Haley" wrote in message
... Audio_Empire wrote: I just had an opportunity to compare, in my own system, several current USB DACs. One was the new DragonFly by Audioquest, the next was the Ayre Acoustics QB-9 and the third was the PS Audio PerfectWave II. Anybody who thinks that DACs all sound the same, is either deluding himself (or herself) or simply can't hear. I realize that there have been a number of fairly high-profile "studies" performed whereby the results of ABX tests show "conclusively" that all DACs sound alike. I question the above diagnosis of a mental disorder (delusional) in all persons who may disagree with the author's opinions. Oh, come on, no-one is saying that. What has been said is that if components don't sound alike there is some good reason such as gross differences of level, frequency response, noise, or distortion -- all things that can easily be seen on a spectrum analyzer. This isn't surprising: the ear is a spectrum analyzer. If there ever is a difference detected in a listening test that can't be explained in terms of such differences it'll be time for physiologists to do some new fundamental research. Maybe there's a Nobel Prize in it. This seems especially relevant, as the preferred device the Aye QB-9 has signficiant frequency response abberations in the normal audible range. Please see: http://www.stereophile.com/content/a...c-measurements It appears that the device may be up to 3.5 dB down at 20 Khz. |
|
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
DAC Differences
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "Andrew Haley" wrote in message ... Audio_Empire wrote: I just had an opportunity to compare, in my own system, several current USB DACs. One was the new DragonFly by Audioquest, the next was the Ayre Acoustics QB-9 and the third was the PS Audio PerfectWave II. Anybody who thinks that DACs all sound the same, is either deluding himself (or herself) or simply can't hear. I realize that there have been a number of fairly high-profile "studies" performed whereby the results of ABX tests show "conclusively" that all DACs sound alike. I question the above diagnosis of a mental disorder (delusional) in all persons who may disagree with the author's opinions. Be my guest, but anyone who cannot hear the differences between DACs must have SOMETHING wrong with them. I.E. they must be either unable to hear those differences or they have talked themselves into not hearing them (this would be the "delusional" part to which I was referring). People delude themselves about things every day in order to protect their own core values and opinions in their own minds. It's hardly a mental disorder, more likely, it's human nature. Oh, come on, no-one is saying that. What has been said is that if components don't sound alike there is some good reason such as gross differences of level, frequency response, noise, or distortion -- all things that can easily be seen on a spectrum analyzer. This isn't surprising: the ear is a spectrum analyzer. If there ever is a difference detected in a listening test that can't be explained in terms of such differences it'll be time for physiologists to do some new fundamental research. Maybe there's a Nobel Prize in it. This seems especially relevant, as the preferred device the Aye QB-9 has signficiant frequency response abberations in the normal audible range. You consider 20+ KHz to be in the normal audible range? I didn't know that Mr. Kruger had canine hearing (I'm impressed!). Most humans over about the age of 20 can't hear 16 KHz, much less higher. Please see: http://www.stereophile.com/content/a...c-measurements It appears that the device may be up to 3.5 dB down at 20 Khz. Oh, contraire, sir! Figure 4. showing frequency response, clearly displays that the Ayre QB-9 is but a HALF of a dB down at 20 KHz at 96KHz sampling rate. (all my listening tests were done at 24-bit, 96 KHz) and doesn't reach -3.5 dB until just below 45 KHz! While at 44.1 KHz, OTOH, it looks to be about -3.5 dB (or greater) on the top end, I suspect that that cutoff frequency is a bit above 22KHz, which is as it should be with a 44.1 KHz sampling frequency per Nyquist. The chart hasn't enough resolution to tell exactly at which frequency the roll-off becomes really steep, but it would make sense that it's above 22 KHz. Even if it were 20 KHz, nobody could hear it well enough for it sound, somehow "wrong". |
|
#9
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
DAC Differences
Audio_Empire wrote:
In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: Audio_Empire wrote: Anybody who thinks that DACs all sound the same, is either deluding himself (or herself) or simply can't hear. I realize that there have been a number of fairly high-profile "studies" performed whereby the results of ABX tests show "conclusively" that all DACs sound alike. I question the above diagnosis of a mental disorder (delusional) in all persons who may disagree with the author's opinions. Be my guest, but anyone who cannot hear the differences between DACs must have SOMETHING wrong with them. I.E. they must be either unable to hear those differences or they have talked themselves into not hearing them (this would be the "delusional" part to which I was referring). But seriously, how can you possibly know that? Hi-fi buffs hear all kinds of things, for example the unconnected battery you mentioned earlier. None of us is immune to this kind of thing; not you, not me. An "audibly perfect" DAC chip can be had for a few dollars. All an audio manufacturer has to do is package it, provide it with a decent power supply and maybe a buffer stage, and not mess it up. That's not trivial, but neither is it something that an electronics engineer would find terribly challenging. Of course, a manufacturer might choose to make their DAC different from others by some deviation from an ideal response. People delude themselves about things every day in order to protect their own core values and opinions in their own minds. It's hardly a mental disorder, more likely, it's human nature. Well, yes. But of course that arrow points both ways. Oh, come on, no-one is saying that. What has been said is that if components don't sound alike there is some good reason such as gross differences of level, frequency response, noise, or distortion -- all things that can easily be seen on a spectrum analyzer. This isn't surprising: the ear is a spectrum analyzer. If there ever is a difference detected in a listening test that can't be explained in terms of such differences it'll be time for physiologists to do some new fundamental research. Maybe there's a Nobel Prize in it. Please see: http://www.stereophile.com/content/a...c-measurements It appears that the device may be up to 3.5 dB down at 20 Khz. Oh, contraire, sir! Figure 4. showing frequency response, clearly displays that the Ayre QB-9 is but a HALF of a dB down at 20 KHz at 96KHz sampling rate. (all my listening tests were done at 24-bit, 96 KHz) and doesn't reach -3.5 dB until just below 45 KHz! While at 44.1 KHz, OTOH, it looks to be about -3.5 dB (or greater) on the top end, I suspect that that cutoff frequency is a bit above 22KHz, which is as it should be with a 44.1 KHz sampling frequency per Nyquist. The chart hasn't enough resolution to tell exactly at which frequency the roll-off becomes really steep, but it would make sense that it's above 22 KHz. Even if it were 20 KHz, nobody could hear it well enough for it sound, somehow "wrong". I wouldn't have thought so either. Andrew. |
|
#10
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
DAC Differences
In article ,
Andrew Haley wrote: Audio_Empire wrote: In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: Audio_Empire wrote: Anybody who thinks that DACs all sound the same, is either deluding himself (or herself) or simply can't hear. I realize that there have been a number of fairly high-profile "studies" performed whereby the results of ABX tests show "conclusively" that all DACs sound alike. I question the above diagnosis of a mental disorder (delusional) in all persons who may disagree with the author's opinions. Be my guest, but anyone who cannot hear the differences between DACs must have SOMETHING wrong with them. I.E. they must be either unable to hear those differences or they have talked themselves into not hearing them (this would be the "delusional" part to which I was referring). But seriously, how can you possibly know that? Hi-fi buffs hear all kinds of things, for example the unconnected battery you mentioned earlier. None of us is immune to this kind of thing; not you, not me. You're correct. There is no way way for me to know why someone else cannot hear the differences in DACs. That's why I only speculated about the reasons they can't hear such great differences, and did not say for sure. I don't know, for sure, honestly. I just know that DACs are all over the place with regard to the way they sound, and those differences are consistent and repeatable, even under blind and double-blind test conditions. An "audibly perfect" DAC chip can be had for a few dollars. All an audio manufacturer has to do is package it, provide it with a decent power supply and maybe a buffer stage, and not mess it up. That's not trivial, but neither is it something that an electronics engineer would find terribly challenging. Of course, a manufacturer might choose to make their DAC different from others by some deviation from an ideal response. Like you, I doubt if the D/A chip itself is the reason for these vast differences in DAC sound. It's the way the rest of the circuit is designed, from power supplies, to filtering, to the analog circuitry driving the output as you say. It's rare to find a cheap DAC that sounds as good as a more expensive one due to cost constraints when designing to a price. For instance, the $250 DragonFly is a great product. It raises the bar considerably on sub-$1000 DACs, but against the Ayre Acoustics QB-9 it loses out in terms of low-end impact, transient response, and detail recovery. As far as frequency response is concerned, there seems to be little difference either in listening or in measurement (compare the two tested frequency response curves between the Ayre and the DragonFly in Stereophile's archives. They are very similar until you get to things like impulse response, HF jitter spectrum plots, and the like, and it becomes clear that while the DragonFly measures very good, the Ayre with it's "apodizing" filter is better. People delude themselves about things every day in order to protect their own core values and opinions in their own minds. It's hardly a mental disorder, more likely, it's human nature. Well, yes. But of course that arrow points both ways. Of course it does. All humans are susceptible to prejudice, and different types and levels of bias, both conscious and unconscious. That's why biases must be controlled and tests need to be devised to either set those biases aside or make them apparent to all participants in the test as well as all of those who analyze the results. Oh, come on, no-one is saying that. What has been said is that if components don't sound alike there is some good reason such as gross differences of level, frequency response, noise, or distortion -- all things that can easily be seen on a spectrum analyzer. This isn't surprising: the ear is a spectrum analyzer. If there ever is a difference detected in a listening test that can't be explained in terms of such differences it'll be time for physiologists to do some new fundamental research. Maybe there's a Nobel Prize in it. Please see: http://www.stereophile.com/content/a...c-measurements It appears that the device may be up to 3.5 dB down at 20 Khz. Oh, contraire, sir! Figure 4. showing frequency response, clearly displays that the Ayre QB-9 is but a HALF of a dB down at 20 KHz at 96KHz sampling rate. (all my listening tests were done at 24-bit, 96 KHz) and doesn't reach -3.5 dB until just below 45 KHz! While at 44.1 KHz, OTOH, it looks to be about -3.5 dB (or greater) on the top end, I suspect that that cutoff frequency is a bit above 22KHz, which is as it should be with a 44.1 KHz sampling frequency per Nyquist. The chart hasn't enough resolution to tell exactly at which frequency the roll-off becomes really steep, but it would make sense that it's above 22 KHz. Even if it were 20 KHz, nobody could hear it well enough for it sound, somehow "wrong". I wouldn't have thought so either. True enough. Andrew. |
|
#11
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
DAC Differences
On 11/18/2012 2:17 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
Audio_Empire wrote: In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: Audio_Empire wrote: Anybody who thinks that DACs all sound the same, is either deluding himself (or herself) or simply can't hear. I realize that there have been a number of fairly high-profile "studies" performed whereby the results of ABX tests show "conclusively" that all DACs sound alike. I question the above diagnosis of a mental disorder (delusional) in all persons who may disagree with the author's opinions. Be my guest, but anyone who cannot hear the differences between DACs must have SOMETHING wrong with them. I.E. they must be either unable to hear those differences or they have talked themselves into not hearing them (this would be the "delusional" part to which I was referring). But seriously, how can you possibly know that? Hi-fi buffs hear all kinds of things, for example the unconnected battery you mentioned earlier. None of us is immune to this kind of thing; not you, not me. An "audibly perfect" DAC chip can be had for a few dollars. All an audio manufacturer has to do is package it, provide it with a decent power supply and maybe a buffer stage, and not mess it up. That's not trivial, but neither is it something that an electronics engineer would find terribly challenging. Of course, a manufacturer might choose to make their DAC different from others by some deviation from an ideal response. **You'd think. I sure did. Recently, I enlarged my workshop to include a listening room, using high quality speakers and amplification. For some time I've been using a Harman Kardon HD970 CD player as my main source. It is an exceptionally good player, which also happens to be quite versatile. A few weeks back a client sent a Marantz CD80 in for service and modification. After a lens clean and lube I put it in my system for a quick listen. WOW! A 23 year old player comprehensively beat my relatively recently manufactured HK player. The difference was not measurable that I could ascertain. Yet the sonic difference was certainly noticable (FR, THD, et al were all beyond the limits of audibility). I replaced the ancient 5534 OP amps with AD825 chips. No measurable improvement. Sound-wise, I couldn't reliably hear any difference either. The client claimed that there was a difference and he was happy. Why did the Marantz sound better than the HK? Dunno. The HK uses completely different DACs to the Marantz and a discrete transistor output stage. I certainly did not expect the Marantz to provide a superior sound to the HK. It's 23 years old! I expected that, at best, there would be no audible difference. At worst, I certainly expceted the HK to beat the Marantz. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
|
#12
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
DAC Differences
"Audio_Empire" wrote in message
... In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Andrew Haley" wrote in message ... Audio_Empire wrote: I just had an opportunity to compare, in my own system, several current USB DACs. One was the new DragonFly by Audioquest, the next was the Ayre Acoustics QB-9 and the third was the PS Audio PerfectWave II. Anybody who thinks that DACs all sound the same, is either deluding himself (or herself) or simply can't hear. I realize that there have been a number of fairly high-profile "studies" performed whereby the results of ABX tests show "conclusively" that all DACs sound alike. I question the above diagnosis of a mental disorder (delusional) in all persons who may disagree with the author's opinions. Be my guest, but anyone who cannot hear the differences between DACs must have SOMETHING wrong with them. I will show that above claim above is not logical: It is perfectly logical that a person would hear no differences between DACs when the DACs were as physically identical copies of the same product as is possible. One might argue for the audilbity of metaphysical differences in order to believe otherwise. Or one might argue that all copies of the same product sound different from each other in which case recommending products by make and model would be illogical. It is perfectly logical that a person would hear no differences between DACs when the DACs were products that had measurably identical performance, or as identical is pracdtically possible. . To say otherwise would represent total disbelief in the relevance of all audio measurements. It is perfectly logical that a person would hear no differences between DACs when the DACs were products that had measurably similar performance that was within the realm of the sensitivity of human perception to measurable differences To say otherwise would represent total disbelief in the relevance of all existing knowlege of human perception. |
|
#13
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
DAC Differences
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "Audio_Empire" wrote in message ... In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Andrew Haley" wrote in message ... Audio_Empire wrote: I just had an opportunity to compare, in my own system, several current USB DACs. One was the new DragonFly by Audioquest, the next was the Ayre Acoustics QB-9 and the third was the PS Audio PerfectWave II. Anybody who thinks that DACs all sound the same, is either deluding himself (or herself) or simply can't hear. I realize that there have been a number of fairly high-profile "studies" performed whereby the results of ABX tests show "conclusively" that all DACs sound alike. I question the above diagnosis of a mental disorder (delusional) in all persons who may disagree with the author's opinions. Be my guest, but anyone who cannot hear the differences between DACs must have SOMETHING wrong with them. I will show that above claim above is not logical: It is perfectly logical that a person would hear no differences between DACs when the DACs were as physically identical copies of the same product as is possible. One might argue for the audilbity of metaphysical differences in order to believe otherwise. Or one might argue that all copies of the same product sound different from each other in which case recommending products by make and model would be illogical. That's specious, at best. It should be understood by all reading this discussion that we are not discussing two units of the same make and model, or even two units that use the same circuit design. It is perfectly logical that a person would hear no differences between DACs when the DACs were products that had measurably identical performance, or as identical is pracdtically possible. . To say otherwise would represent total disbelief in the relevance of all audio measurements. But again, anyone who believes that this discussion is about DACs which Identical measured performance, should not be wasting their time responding to this thread. It is perfectly logical that a person would hear no differences between DACs when the DACs were products that had measurably similar performance that was within the realm of the sensitivity of human perception to measurable differences To say otherwise would represent total disbelief in the relevance of all existing knowlege of human perception. Again, it should be obvious that no one is talking about such DACs. Your examples are reductio ad absurdum. |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Big differences between 44.1 and 96Khz. Why? | Pro Audio | |||
| Differences between EL 84 and EL 34 ...? | Vacuum Tubes | |||
| u87 differences | Pro Audio | |||
| u87 differences | Pro Audio | |||
| RME 8di Pro Vs DS.. Differences? | Pro Audio | |||
Hybrid Mode
