It could be due to noise-shaping, just a single tone is needed. Never underestimate the manufacturers creativity, muting the DAC output to pretend an even higher (at least at a first glance) S/N ratio, if no signal is presented is/was a common choice.
Without informations about the specifics of the implemented cirtuitry, it's hard to say.
Additional measurements could reveal if the noise distribution depends on the signal.
Anybody imagine what a little bit of Goop could add to these cables? It appears to me that Quantum Tunneling cables and Goop would create a synergistic effect to improve the sound well over any other connectivity solution.
Galileo SX IC - Synergistic Research
Unfortunately I cannot find my wallet at the moment, I may have left it at Mouser.
Galileo SX IC - Synergistic Research
Unfortunately I cannot find my wallet at the moment, I may have left it at Mouser.
It's one of many tactics used by audio business posters to blur the issues in discussion. Overload bunch of words and cause "indigestion". Sort of like stalling in sports.
What "gives" with the scare quotes? What is the "purpose" of them? What is it a "few" people don't "understand" from where you "are"?
Profound insight, I would never have known. I know Rich, are you sure he didn't think he was talking to someone that does not know the basic issues?
Last edited:
Scott, if you are serious about that then I will try to briefly explain how I would interpret Jakob's use of quotes.
When we say a listening test is blind or sighted, there are some unstated assumptions commonly associated with those terms. We may tend to assume sighted means a listening test must necessarily be unreliable and blind means that a listening test is reliable (blind and level matched, you know).
For people who have studied a lot about perceptual testing, the above assumptions may or may not be considered reliable. It depends on a lot of unstated details about the purpose of a particular listening test, exactly how the test planned and conducted, how many test subjects are used, how results are interpreted, how replicable the test is, etc.
In other words, all the details matter. It is a gross oversimplification to rely on blind or sighted as all there is to it. Its something we humans tend to get wrong when we don't have expert knowledge of perceptual testing, or for that matter any other complex scientific field outside of our own area(s) of expertise. Like it or not, EEs are not trained in that area and reading a few studies or even a whole book on a subject does not make one an expert.
What we have here in this thread are mostly some strongly opinionated lay persons who tend to cluster into groups of individuals who more or less agree with each other. It is social proof among members of their group that gives them confidence they are right. However, social proof is not scientific proof and confidence is only a feeling (much like an emotion).
Jakob2 is the closest we have to an expert in perceptual testing (and will do quite nicely), but some group(s) don't like what he has to say. They are being the science deniers in this instance, but hard to admit it even to themselves. They resort to insults, FUD calling, and other bad behavior to shut up someone they don't want to hear from. They may as well be insisting the earth is flat, that's how wrong they are.
Sorry, in my last post I forgot to mention taking quotes out of context among the list of bad behaviors.
Exactly. When a sales man rings the bell, I am entitled to slam the door and hit his nose in the way.
Not being an expert in perceptual testing, I would assume "sighted" means having knowledge of the DUT and "blind" means not having knowledge.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.