Agree 1000%
I find rephrasing a few words makes your statement to be acceptable.
Music can never be recreated or enhanced by a reproduction system, only lost. Part of the reproduction system could have a fault that luckily happens to compensate for an other error in the system however. When not satisfactory then more engineering and science is needed.
Anything else to add?
Yes, I've should have said: when you press 'play' or 'drop the needle'
Last edited:
Technically you're right but practically I think not quite.
These audiophile terms are mentioned more in the non-technical circles than in technical one. Sometimes each person has his own use of the terms (!). And the average system is so poor that this is not a musicality that comes from perfect amplification of perfectly musical recordings as you mentioned.
Think about this, the words/phrases/terms are not that important, what important is what the person perceive when he says the words...
Some cannot explain the impression clearly but some can. And those terms can even be correlated with technical terms...
"Musicality" can mean several things. And you might remember the words "foot-tapping".
Yeah- foot tapping...
what about this
Plane at infinity - Wikipedia
and this
Immersion (mathematics) - Wikipedia
referring to the two sources of sound in a room
what about this
Plane at infinity - Wikipedia
and this
Immersion (mathematics) - Wikipedia
referring to the two sources of sound in a room
Nothing magic of course.
However, why have you been complaining for a long time that the sound of your DAC is "source dependent" when it's not possible to have a scientifically well grounded confirmation?
Is there any alchemy in your DAC?
Any artifacts introduced by the DAC should be clearly visible with the distortion measurements currently available.
As far as I have seen there is no evidence in the published measurements that could explain such a problem.
But maybe I didn't look carefully.
Let me be clear, I have no idea why and I don't even want to formulate hypotheses about it.
Just out of curiosity I ask who knows more than me.
OK - so you state: No magic. But then you decided to add a "follow up" question - why - it's such a childish way of communicating. Its is like you are always seeking an argument about some/anything. Have you aksed yourself why you do this? I cant see the logical connection between the questions... strange.
I have a technical theory why it is affected by the source. It's due to that the filter in the DPLL is not low enough - very slow frequency changes are let through and due to the DPLL design it makes the logic change the oscillator frequency as the buffer is so small. This simple insight you where not able to grasp even after I did explain it 4 or 5 times in different manners. I think you should be technical capable of grasping it but you just don't want to accept it - why is beyond me. But maybe its is just oscillators that is your thing and anything beyond is a bit problematic for you. But I think this is not the pace for discussing this particular topic so lets stop here. And perhaps continue there...
No alchemy there (silly question!)
//
I have a technical theory why it is affected by the source. It's due to that the filter in the DPLL is not low enough - very slow frequency changes are let through and due to the DPLL design it makes the logic change the oscillator frequency as the buffer is so small. This simple insight you where not able to grasp even after I did explain it 4 or 5 times in different manners. I think you should be technical capable of grasping it but you just don't want to accept it - why is beyond me. But maybe its is just oscillators that is your thing and anything beyond is a bit problematic for you. But I think this is not the pace for discussing this particular topic so lets stop here. And perhaps continue there...
No alchemy there (silly question!)
//
So your theory isn't proven, right?
You basically hear something you can't prove with measurements.
Forget what I can think about it, since I wrote "I ask who knows more than me".
As you see my way of communicating is simply pragmatic.
The only discussion I'm looking for is purely technical.
Personally I believe what you hear, I have no reason to doubt it, however there are many people here who argue that what is not measurable with current measuring instruments is not acceptable from a scientific point of view.
Just the topic of this thread, sound quality and measurements.
So why have you been complaining for months in another thread and don't want to address your problem here?
This is the right place, it concerns precisely the correlation between sound quality and measurements of audio devices and not just of amplifiers.
For everyone its true that if they hear something and correlate it with measurements, then they may believe they have found the cause. In reality, no causation is established. There is a correlation and nothing more at that point.
Its also true that some of those people described above refuse to believe what someone else claims to hear. Rather, they demand proof. Correlation will not suffice.
Why? Human nature. We tend to believe our own senses detect the one true reality. Other people imagine things or else lie.
Its also true that some of those people described above refuse to believe what someone else claims to hear. Rather, they demand proof. Correlation will not suffice.
Why? Human nature. We tend to believe our own senses detect the one true reality. Other people imagine things or else lie.
I would like to say that I absolutely believe all/most reported sound impressions - no doubt. Lying about them on a forum seems so silly. Then there is an other aspect if these are "real" or imagined. I say no more... other than that I myself will not be fooled to make investments in things that do not provide real results - it would be to belittle my own person and I'm not interested in that. I'm conscious enough to "hear" beyond sneak oil or fairy tales. Nowadays 
//
//
- Status
- Not open for further replies.