You've got this backwards. What that video shows is the distraction factor when more than one sensor is in use. If you put hand over the top portion of the video so that the ball movement is not shown and only the body movement is visible (keeping the attention in one place), you won't miss the gorilla. That video supports the value of audio DBT even more. In audio DBT, listener's sense is brought down to just 1 by blocking the visual sense. In doing so, the listener can listen better on sound without the distraction of other sensors.
See above.
Have you discussed this with an audio expert by any chance?
Science is about questioning and trying to discredit your beliefs, some who are convinced that ears are all you need do not question their beliefs and argue vehemently against anyone who suggest otherwise.....
I have spent several years watching this behaviour and some recent threads on this and 3 different forums has only confirmed my observations, I can provide plenty of posts that illustrate this....
Why is it funny, again we come back to the definition of hi-fidelity.... If two DACs reproduce the input signal (to the recording and storage system) with ultimate fidelity then they have to sound the same...
Actually, maybe it's very simple: NO DAC is 100% transparent, so a ''80% transparent'' won't sound the same as a ''70% transparent''...
'Accurately reproduced' assumes that there is an original (read my previous post) - many can not tell one if it smacks them in the face.
Sure I accept, I meant the kind of sound one hopes to get by a misbiased tube buffer, and not what you get from from a well designed tube amp.
Agree, we know a lot, and we must apply what we do know - but disregarding what doesn't fit our 'Norm' is foolish.
I have said many times, good lab results are the foundation of a good design, but not the complete story.
If You mean our definition of better may not be the same, I agree.
Frankly, I have been to many classical music concerts and sometimes I prefer the 'sound' of the recorded version!
simply because care was taken in recording techniques by clever microphone placements, clever mixing and so forth, allowing me to focus better.
Which brings me to the first issue: Do we necessarily want the original?
However, since this thread is about but one link in the overall chain, I agree that a DAC should be transparent, but how could it? it is only half a link, the other half are the various ADC's used in recordings and all their flaws.
We only test our DAC's using sine waves, because we argue all other waveforms can be mathematically broken down into sine waves bu Fourier analysis.
Last edited:
I agree, but have you questioned yourself about any possibility that you don't understand some parts of the issue?
Did you notice any sign of prejudice when these "audiophiles" are being "attacked"? Or any aggressive behavior that triggers some forms of protective/defensive behavior?
If you need third party opinion (to validate your observation), you can share that...
I would define X-brand DAC as ' transparent' when the inclusion of an ADC-DAC loop incorporating X-brand DAC cannot be distinguished by ear from the original signal. Many X-brands can do this, and be happy for it!
The reason to be happy for this is that all music you listen has already lost its digital virginity anyways, sometimes even Dolly does Dallas-style, long before you even set ears to it.
Last edited:
We are talking about 100% though, it was a theoretical comment from both my self and initially from Vacuphile... Consider it a reference point or a base dimension..... If they are ultimately transparent then they will sound the same, we are aware that this is not so in the real world...
In digital audio technology, there isn't anything to be left to belief. Those who rely on belief are the uninformed ones.
Yes, I compared an ADC/DAC inserted in a direct mike feed to a bypass. Many decades ago, this was also done using a 16/44 processor with an all-analog system, with the founder of Linn being the listener. He reported that he could easily hear when the ADC/DAC was inserted before the trials began. Then the ears-only trials commenced. Yes, random results.
Many excuses followed, but thirty years have passed and there's no ears-only data to refute the results. NB: the systems that I tested and that were used for the Linn tests were well-engineered. There could certainly be audible differences in badly designed fashion systems or ultra-cheap units.
And how am I supposed to do that? I already think that I can see the big picture. If you think I don't, show me...
If you think that many people have been fooled by their ears, you are CORRECT. May be you have been fooled too. But you cannot bark on every trees.