Indeed it does, not something I'll be exploring since I need the processing for the analog domain as well. DSP properly implemented I think is less harmful than any analog EQ implementation and can correct for driver offsets, and some other things. (I use Dirac 1 currently and am hesitating to upgrade to Dirac 2)
I really hate the idea of being limited by the SHD though, glad to hear another good review of it.
Too bad...
An attitude such as that reveals that you have little interest in learning from people who just might have a little more talent and experience than you do. Oh well, it is your loss.
An attitude such as that reveals that you have little interest in learning from people who just might have a little more talent and experience than you do. Oh well, it is your loss.
Same here. You mistake what JohnW is trying to do, I think. In this particular case he's trying to make a very accurate native DSD dac. Certain specs of SD dacs can't be beaten with native DSD (using present technology, it seems). However, native DSD may sound more accurate to humans in certain respects. If so, it isn't intended to be an effects box. Hopefully it will work as intended.
Last edited:
I hope other enthusiasts would narrow the gap and find better correlation between measured quantities and sonic impression. But I can also understand the reluctance of those who find measurements as tedious or much less fun.
There are other reasons you didn't mention. A lack of work space at home, a lack of faith in audio measurements can be another, no doubt there are more. We still need measurements of course, we just need some new ones (e.g. a low cost jitter test for random phase noise at low offsets) and to better understand how measurements correlate with listening results. I disagree with those who say to ignore listening results and to rely on measurements alone (maybe someday we will be there, not yet).
Too many are. Some criticize ASR's measurement approach but some of these things are easily measured. There are several groups of gurus and their fellow travelers that like using magnetics, transformers or inductors, where normally one would not. ASR measured their well known property of level dependent frequency response and accompanying distortion in two products. These effects are not subtle and easily audible and some develop a preference for them, but the products are in essence effects boxes.
No need to mention again some of the Pass Labs amps, a huge following. Then there's the Lampizators.
I've learned that it's pointless to try and have any conversation with some of these groups I can tell this is one of them.
Bill, there's lots of evidence pointing in that direction.
https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/the...blowtorch-preamplifier-iv-12.html#post6051640
"We can measure sub 1 per 100 million distortions. No need to use humans to determine distortions."
Or, the fellow IVX, when asked about how his dac sounds, not just how it measures, said:
He and I had more than one conversation about it. His point was that he's an engineer, he designs to specs, and he is not a listening expert so he will not use listening to evaluate his own audio designs.
https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/the...blowtorch-preamplifier-iv-12.html#post6051640
"We can measure sub 1 per 100 million distortions. No need to use humans to determine distortions."
Or, the fellow IVX, when asked about how his dac sounds, not just how it measures, said:
He and I had more than one conversation about it. His point was that he's an engineer, he designs to specs, and he is not a listening expert so he will not use listening to evaluate his own audio designs.
Last edited:
DACs on the market are already audibly transparent even at low price. What benefit is there by making measurably better and better DACs other than sales pitch?
Excuse me but you go on and on and on and on and on and no about this.........
Why does it matter so much to you?
IME this kind of obsession is often to find in people who converted themselves from "golden-ear" to "non-golden-ear" , usually by doing some kind of "blind tests" without knowledge about proper sensory testing.
So they decide having erred all the time when perceiving differences between electronic audio devices (including cables and other stuff) under the premise that the measured numbers are below the known hearing thresholds.
The next step in the reasoning seems to be that they did not just have fooled themselves (when believing these differences exist) but were misled by a world wide conspiracy of manufacturers, reviewers and sales men. This way it is obviously easier to accept the former illusion. "It wasn't my fault, I was tricked into it...."
In this state of belief it is (IMO) apparently extremely difficult to accept informations that provide evidence contrary to the new belief, as it would mean to accept that he might have triple-fooled himself during the conversion process.
Balanced debate is good. Two extremes standing a distance apart and lobbing bricks at each other never comes to a happy conclusion.
You may be right on this, but of course it is anyone’s right to choose his own philosophy in this matter.
The problem is when people start to think that they have some obligation to fight other people’s views. That unfortunately happens here all too often.
My personal conviction is that we have a long way to go in further improving our listening experience by using our ears as we have done for well over a century. Don’t forget that in the early days of audio LISTENING was THE main way to improve things since possibilities for measurements were still very limited. Now we can measure a lot more, and that has brought huge advantages, but to judge whether we have to come to the point where listening has become futile is an arbitrary thing.
I feel no need to ridicule people who are convinced that measurements have become the one-and-only factor, because it is their good right to think that way. If they are happy with gear that has proven itself by the scope of measurements on sites like ASR, then why should I criticize them?
There’s also no need to criticize those that like their own ears to be the ultimate judge in audio design. Maybe they are wrong, maybe they are right, but please don’t attack their views.
“To live and let live” seems to have become obsolete in today’s society, but that really is the only way to keep this forum a place where everyone feels welcome. There will always be the chance that one can learn from others, even from those that have different views.
+100
But although we all presumably like it more to be right about things, the basis of any fruitful discussion on these topics should the mutual agreement that the other point of view could be correct. It might still be not correct/important for oneself, but generally correct/true.
Otherwise it isn't a discussion but kind of proclamations exchange which is IMO the opposite of "fruitful" .
Ok, could be, but isn't that a different argument than the one I was responding to?
It might be better in the course of exchanging arguments, if people avoid "better" as qualifier, but wrt "meaningless" does it matter if someone writes "prefer this" instead of "this is better"?
The underlying basic information is the same, i.e. the listener thinks there is a difference (of some relevance).
Lucas,
What about the group of people that JBL tested and trained to become loudspeaker listeners?
Did JBL produce nothing more than philosophers, or did the listeners develop some objective skill as human measuring/detection devices?
What about drug or explosive sniffing dogs? Are they just trained in a particular philosophy, or are they skilled at something more objective than other dogs not so trained.
What about the group of people that JBL tested and trained to become loudspeaker listeners?
Did JBL produce nothing more than philosophers, or did the listeners develop some objective skill as human measuring/detection devices?
What about drug or explosive sniffing dogs? Are they just trained in a particular philosophy, or are they skilled at something more objective than other dogs not so trained.