About tube DACs? - Page 14 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Source & Line > Digital Line Level

Digital Line Level DACs, Digital Crossovers, Equalizers, etc.

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 26th January 2013, 06:45 AM   #131
diyAudio Member
 
abraxalito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hangzhou - Marco Polo's 'most beautiful city'. 700yrs is a long time though...
Blog Entries: 101
Send a message via MSN to abraxalito Send a message via Yahoo to abraxalito Send a message via Skype™ to abraxalito
Yes, I used it - and not for the first time with you either. So are you going to give a falsifiable description for it, or not? My ounce of silver's on the latter.
__________________
No matter if we meanwhile surrender every value for which we stand, we must strive to cajole the majority into imagining itself on our side - Everett Dean Martin
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th January 2013, 06:49 AM   #132
Julf is offline Julf  Europe
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Quote:
Originally Posted by abraxalito View Post
Yes, I used it - and not for the first time with you either. So are you going to give a falsifiable description for it, or not? My ounce of silver's on the latter.
See my previous message.

You seem to be turning this into some silly personal issue. I don't think it has anything to do with the topic of this thread any more. More than happy to discuss it further, but please start a new, more appropriate thread for it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th January 2013, 06:52 AM   #133
cotdt is offline cotdt  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Send a message via AIM to cotdt
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julf View Post
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"?
And what music should be used for this ABX test? Lady Gaga or Mozart? Maybe Metallica can create better objectivity?

I've already done these blind tests, and the tube amp won (over Hypex UcD, Gainclone, and another tube amp). Of course, the results could only convince myself and no one else, since the music was chosen by me and the subjects were family and friends. All the equipment was made by myself. I've also done blind tests that "prove" compressed MP3 sounds better than the original uncompressed files, but who will believe me?

I've yet to read a scientific paper that was completely rigorous. In science, objectivity simply means to use one's human senses to make observations. What we call subjective evaluations in audio are considered objective in science. In audio, objective usually just refers to measurements. You can create a lot of confusion by using this term "objective."
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th January 2013, 06:52 AM   #134
diyAudio Member
 
abraxalito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hangzhou - Marco Polo's 'most beautiful city'. 700yrs is a long time though...
Blog Entries: 101
Send a message via MSN to abraxalito Send a message via Yahoo to abraxalito Send a message via Skype™ to abraxalito
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julf View Post
See my previous message.
I saw it - no falsifiable description there that I could see for 'properly designed'.

Quote:
You seem to be turning this into some silly personal issue.
That tells me something about your perception, thanks. In actuality this is just how science is done, as opposed to religion. Science needs falsifiable descriptions for categories like 'properly designed'.

Quote:
I don't think it has anything to do with the topic of this thread any more. More than happy to discuss it further, but please start a new, more appropriate thread for it.
Indeed 'properly designed' was never relevant to this thread, being your own private fantasy
__________________
No matter if we meanwhile surrender every value for which we stand, we must strive to cajole the majority into imagining itself on our side - Everett Dean Martin
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th January 2013, 07:18 AM   #135
qusp is offline qusp  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
qusp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Quote:
I've yet to read a scientific paper that was completely rigorous. In science, objectivity simply means to use one's human senses to make observations. What we call subjective evaluations in audio are considered objective in science. In audio, objective usually just refers to measurements. You can create a lot of confusion by using this term "objective."
no, thats incorrect, objective does not mean subjective under any circumstance. objective can mean using ones senses to observe something external to oneself (usually along with recording those observations). that would be a fair use of the word, but using ones own senses to study ones own sensations is a subjective/introspective evaluation of an event that takes place nowhere but within the observer and with audio, it is an event that comes and goes, leaving nothing but a fragile memory of the event.

Last edited by qusp; 26th January 2013 at 07:33 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th January 2013, 07:44 AM   #136
cotdt is offline cotdt  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Send a message via AIM to cotdt
Quote:
Originally Posted by qusp View Post
no, thats incorrect, objective does not mean subjective under any circumstance. objective can mean using ones senses to observe something external to oneself (usually along with recording those observations). that would be a fair use of the word, but using ones own senses to study ones own sensations is a subjective/introspective evaluation of an event.
I don't think I understand you, or whether if there is even a disagreement or you are just being extremely technical. I will elaborate.

Taste, smell, vision, hearing, etc., as processed by the brain are observations. "This speaker has more treble extension" would be considered an objective evaluation in science, but in the hifi world, it's called subjective and objective refers solely to measurements. Fair enough, if some hobby engineers want to redefine the word, I have no problem with that. The problem comes when one uses the word "objective" in a nonstandard way, then it's just confusing.
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th January 2013, 08:07 AM   #137
Julf is offline Julf  Europe
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Quote:
Originally Posted by cotdt View Post
Taste, smell, vision, hearing, etc., as processed by the brain are observations.
Not in the sense of hard science. What you are describing is perception, where the "raw data" is processed (and coloured) by the brain - affected by learning, memory and expectation.

Quote:
"This speaker has more treble extension" would be considered an objective evaluation in science
No, it would be called an opinion.

"To me, it sounds like this speaker has more treble extension" is an observation. Not an observation about the speaker, but an observation on your subjective perception of the sound of the speaker.
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th January 2013, 08:16 AM   #138
Julf is offline Julf  Europe
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Quote:
Originally Posted by abraxalito View Post
I saw it - no falsifiable description there that I could see for 'properly designed'.
OK, let me try again. How about "designed according to established industry practice, as thought in the university level electrical engineering curriculum and published in industry standards and peer-reviewed publications"?

But it doesn't matter. Forget the whole "properly designed" part - the only reason I attached any disclaimer to my question was to rule out totally pathological cases - I am sure we can all come up with silly circuits that sound absolutely awful, independent of whether they use tubes or semiconductors.

So, let's get back to my original question.

Can you show me any factual evidence of tubes sounding objectively better than a properly designed solid state circuit?


Quote:
That tells me something about your perception, thanks. In actuality this is just how science is done, as opposed to religion. Science needs falsifiable descriptions for categories like 'properly designed'.
I have nothing against the discussion about falsifiability (apart from it being rather of-topic), what I was objecting to was the silly "not for the first time with you either" quipping...

Quote:
Indeed 'properly designed' was never relevant to this thread, being your own private fantasy
I know, rather naive to dream about proper design when talking about hi-fi, isn't it
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th January 2013, 08:19 AM   #139
Julf is offline Julf  Europe
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Quote:
Originally Posted by cotdt View Post
I've already done these blind tests, and the tube amp won (over Hypex UcD, Gainclone, and another tube amp).
I would love to (seriously - no irony here) hear about your setup for the blind testing. Was it DBX, and how was it done? What were the exact results?

Quote:
I've also done blind tests that "prove" compressed MP3 sounds better than the original uncompressed files, but who will believe me?
I, for one, have no reason not to believe you. MP3 is a perceptual encoding, that works by removing "irrelevant" information, possibly leaving a more focused result.
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th January 2013, 08:45 AM   #140
diyAudio Member
 
abraxalito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hangzhou - Marco Polo's 'most beautiful city'. 700yrs is a long time though...
Blog Entries: 101
Send a message via MSN to abraxalito Send a message via Yahoo to abraxalito Send a message via Skype™ to abraxalito
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julf View Post
Can you show me any factual evidence of tubes sounding objectively better than a properly designed solid state circuit?
No for the simple reason that I haven't a clue how to select the 'properly designed solid state circuit' in order to make the comparison - not for want of asking. I don't use tubes myself, I get results that satisfy me with SS amps, but I don't knock those who prefer tubes. Each to their own.

Quote:
I have nothing against the discussion about falsifiability (apart from it being rather of-topic), what I was objecting to was the silly "not for the first time with you either" quipping...
Objecting is par for the course for an objectivist - I'm sure you can get over yourself though

When you're ready for a 'proper' scientific dialog about high-end design then let me know
__________________
No matter if we meanwhile surrender every value for which we stand, we must strive to cajole the majority into imagining itself on our side - Everett Dean Martin
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Another Tube I/V converter/preamp for balanced DACs with SE output:build thread pauldune Tubes / Valves 4 31st May 2013 02:50 PM
DACs Jerseydevildog Digital Source 1 25th November 2007 06:24 PM
DACs? MashBill Pass Labs 3 28th February 2007 09:43 AM
Parallel different DACs roibm Digital Source 1 4th November 2004 10:54 AM
Audio DACs, Instrumentation DACs. Brian Guralnick Digital Source 10 3rd November 2002 04:56 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 07:26 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2