About tube DACs?

[cotdt]

Discrete SS for I/V stage has always sounded great to me (I especially liked Zapfilter Mk2 and Legato 3.1), but I'm not a fan of most-opamp I/V stages. I'm sure good sound is possible with opamps, I just did not like most of the ones I've heard. I think what the OP heard was an opamp-based analog stage. They seem to measure well, I wonder what's amiss.

[Julf]

Originally Posted by stephensank

Feedback does NOT correct colourations in actual practice, a more often feedback corrects most, but then adds distortion of it's own, due to the time delay involved.

Properly designed feedback and circuits with sufficient open-loop bandwidth do not suffer from the time delay. TIM and it's ilk hasn't been an issue since the 1970's.

But, seriously, dude, you are VERY obviously prejudiced against tubes.

I probably am - from decades of working with tube gear.

I would love to see factual evidence of tubes sounding objectively better than a properly designed solid state circuit.

[abraxalito]

Originally Posted by Julf

I would love to see factual evidence of tubes sounding objectively better than a properly designed solid state circuit.

And I'd like to see an objective (that means falsifiable) description of 'properly designed' but I very much doubt you're going to give us one.

[cotdt]

Originally Posted by Julf

I would love to see factual evidence of tubes sounding objectively better than a properly designed solid state circuit.

How does something sound objectively better than something else? Or do you just mean measurements?

[abraxalito]

I'm guessing he's meaning a DBT designed, administered and evaluated entirely by robots Or zombies?

[cotdt]

Originally Posted by abraxalito

I'm guessing he's meaning a DBT designed, administered and evaluated entirely by robots Or zombies?

Hehe... well if so, the result would not have much value to any human.

[Julf]

Originally Posted by abraxalito

And I'd like to see an objective (that means falsifiable) description of 'properly designed' but I very much doubt you're going to give us one.

How about "using modern engineering guidelines"? Nothing magic about it.

[abraxalito]

It seems clear that this word 'falsifiable' is a bit of a sticking point for you. A dose of Karl Popper perhaps?

[Julf]

Originally Posted by cotdt

How does something sound objectively better than something else? Or do you just mean measurements?

I do consider double-blind ABX as "objective" in the sense that you isolate away other perceptual factors than the actual listening experience. Thus you get a reasonably objective indication of what people actually hear, instead of what they think they should be hearing. No, not objective in an absolute sense, but do you have suggestions for better methods that don't boil down to "I think like this because I think like this"?

[Julf]

Originally Posted by abraxalito

It seems clear that this word 'falsifiable' is a bit of a sticking point for you. A dose of Karl Popper perhaps?

It is? You are the one who used the word, not me. But yes, "proper design" can definitely be described in a way that is falsifiable in the Karl Popper sense - the example mentioned here was TIM - simply a result of not following proper design guidelines.