The reason I asked is because it's vague to me. More specificity is needed if you are seeking meaningful discussion.
I'd not say DAC differences were 'night and day' - the areas where I've noticed differences are in dynamics, HF clarity and soundstage depth.
So you are referring to audible difference. In that case, how did you do the comparison? I'm asking because all the test results I've seen and read about don't say such things. I'm anxious to discover new data. Thanks in advance.
I've not done side-by-side comparisons so no 'data' is available. Tests aren't interesting to me.
I thought "the areas where I've noticed differences are in dynamics, HF clarity and soundstage depth." is comparison data. 😕
Comparison result is also data. Your "I've noticed differences" had to have come from comparing, no? I mean, how can a difference be brought up unless there is more than one?
Your questions have lost me.
The comparisons I talked about not doing were of the side-by-side kind. I'd guess we all make comparisons of a sort when we say 'that daffodil's a light-coloured one' but not by comparing with any specific daffodil more with memories of daffodils in general.
The comparisons I talked about not doing were of the side-by-side kind. I'd guess we all make comparisons of a sort when we say 'that daffodil's a light-coloured one' but not by comparing with any specific daffodil more with memories of daffodils in general.
In other words, your statement quoted below is not based on meaningful comparison. Got it. Thanks.
You clearly misunderstand - the comparison was meaningful but seems you don't consider it so. That's your choice.
Never underestimate the power of denial.
No, they don´t disappear in general, but if experimenters don´t want to learn how to do sound controlled listening tests , the results will be most probable that the null hypothesis can not be rejected.
Please remember the experiments on inattentional blindness or inattentional deafness; although we (probably) agree that most particpants were able to detect the difference, up to 50% do _not_ percept the "gorilla" in this example:
Why fast talking double speaking psychopaths get away with it: sustained inattentional blindness | Neurological Correlates
(scroll a bit down to see the picture)
In your next post you got it right:
"......with a DBT you remove sighted bios....."
but every other bias mechanism is still at work, therefore it is quite dangerous to emphasize the "DBT-property" while in fact there is so much more to consider to get correct results in a perception test.
you should take some crash course on digital audio and be polite when asking things
i can design and build dacs using some common chips that sounded on par with some well known $2000 units
In your own mind.
You must have a different understand of the word "meaningful" in the context of comparing electronic audio components.
Have you ever heard of expectation bias? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFKT4jvN4OE
Never underestimate the power of suggestion.
Last edited:
Which peer reviewed scientific experiment is this based on?
Who are those people, can you list some?
So much for that popular "trust your ears" wisdom. 🙁
Here's an example of visual sense interfering aural sense.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0
What are those facts? And which peer reviewed scientific experiment is this based on?
then pls show me what you understand about audio DA/AD conversion and hifi with evidence
We DA turns the analogue signal into little bits and AD turns the little bits into analogue signal... Near enough 🙂
Hi-Fi used to mean high fidelity, now it means adding your choice of colouration to differentiate your product from someone else's otherwise by definition all gear would sound the same and reproduce the source warts and all.............
Hi-Fi used to mean high fidelity, now it means adding your choice of colouration to differentiate your product from someone else's otherwise by definition all gear would sound the same and reproduce the source warts and all.............