The battle of the DACs, comparison of sound quality between some DACs

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 537459
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#401
Jakob2 said:
@MarcelvdG,

Oohashi et al. was the first publication trying to find corroboration for the hypothesis that ultrasonic content is perceptible by humans (and has positive effects as well). Quite a few papers were published subsequently, mostly combining sensory experiments (including controlled double-blind tests and body measurements (like EEG, PET-Scans, or even fMRI, iirc) to explore the reactions of the listeners.
Results were inconsistent, sometimes methodological flaws or weaknesses were present; Reiss calculated in his meta-analysis an overall probability for discrimination of 52,3% (CI(95) 50,6 - 54.0), but that number is questionable due to the heterogeneity of the included papers.
Click to expand...
Interesting that 50 % is outside the 95 % confidence interval.

Did Reiss check for a correlation between methodological quality and effect size? Do you have a reference to the Reiss analysis?
 
#403
Fortunately, Reiss opted for the open-access publication:

https://www.aes.org/tmpFiles/elib/20220612/18296.pdf

My comment was a bit misleading, as the number was calculated for the overall condition on all included experiments for discrimination of so-called "high-resolution audio", not just the "high-frequency content".
It was IMO quite a detailed and thorough full analysis, but, as said before, it raises some questions due to the heterogeneity and the definition of "high-resolution".
IIRC there was some supplemental, even more detailed, material given on a website including raw data, so, if you're interested, I'll search my library.

Edit: Some of the supplemental material can be found at
https://code.soundsoftware.ac.uk/projects/hi-res-meta-analysis/repository
 
  • Like
Reactions: MarcelvdG
#404
@MarcelvdG
There is always a noise bottom for the used bin width or BW of the narrow band analysis and THD cannot go lower, so it is not “unlimited”. And, THD also depends on number of harmonic components included in the computation. This differs from 2 to 20, usually. And they all are limited by narrow analysis noise bottom or bin width noise bottom. The measuring instrument has its noise bottom as well.
 
#405
#406
PMA said:
@MarcelvdG
There is always a noise bottom for the used bin width or BW of the narrow band analysis and THD cannot go lower, so it is not “unlimited”. And, THD also depends on number of harmonic components included in the computation. This differs from 2 to 20, usually. And they all are limited by narrow analysis noise bottom or bin width noise bottom. The measuring instrument has its noise bottom as well.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, but I'd count those as practical limitations, practical limitations of measuring equipment. That 0 % minimum distortion for an ideal 16 bit DAC with dither is of course theoretical rather than practical.
 
#407
Jakob2 said:
It was your assertion and now you should be able to bring up the evidence supporting your assertion.
Click to expand...
What did I assert? Also, can you quote my words of such assertion?
Jakob2 said:
At the risk of contradicting you, my view on "certain types of listening tests" is just based on science and, as you know 😉 , I've provided the relevant literature backing my view.
Click to expand...
Your view is created by your own bias and that's why it's called "your view", not "John's view". Your bias that you've been displaying on this (& other) forum is based on the audio business you are involved in.
Jakob2 said:
You should be able to do the same.

You seem to believe, that a special definition for the "audio field" must exist, but that isn't true. As usual, the real/true parameter is the one, experimenters are trying to find out by doing good quality experiments.
Click to expand...
Since you didn't respond specifically, I'll ask again, for listening comparisons, what is real/true value of the parameter?
 
#408
When someone asks about, 'what is the real/true value of the parameter,' does it make one wonder if the the person asking understands the basic concept of an experimental parameter? Are they asking for an explanation of the concept itself? Something else?
 
#409
Markw4 said:
if the the person asking understands the basic concept of an experimental parameter? Are they asking for an explanation of the concept itself? Something else?
Click to expand...
Go back and read or reread post #301, 314, 333, 360. That should clear things up for you.
Bonus for you: In listening comparison test, the listener would observe with ears. Can you think of what can "guarantee correct results" (Jakob2's words)? Our listening sense isn't linear as you pointed out. It varies depending on frequency level, age and gender just to name a few. "guarantee correct results", eh. 🤔
 
#410
MarcelvdG said:
Absolutely, but I'd count those as practical limitations, practical limitations of measuring equipment. That 0 % minimum distortion for an ideal 16 bit DAC with dither is of course theoretical rather than practical.
Click to expand...
Although most of its audio devices have been measured and results have been published, The Well Audio privileges listening rather than measuring if they don’t match. After several years of development R&D staff is not able to correlate THD, IMD and other FFT analysis with the perceived sound quality. In the opinion of The Well Audio designers the -85dB THD converter/buffer (THD similar to the I/V converter of Pedja’s AYA5) sounds very good, much better than other opamp based converter. BTW, The Well Audio provides the TWSDAC-1541-D which does not implement any I/V converter, so everyone can use any other converter with better THD.
 
#412
The Well Audio said:
Although most of its audio devices have been measured and results have been published, The Well Audio privileges listening rather than measuring if they don’t match. After several years of development R&D staff is not able to correlate THD, IMD and other FFT analysis with the perceived sound quality. In the opinion of The Well Audio designers the -85dB THD converter/buffer (THD similar to the I/V converter of Pedja’s AYA5) sounds very good, much better than other opamp based converter. BTW, The Well Audio provides the TWSDAC-1541-D which does not implement any I/V converter, so everyone can use any other converter with better THD.
Click to expand...
Instruments (like piano) create a a wealth of overtones - the overtones spectra is unique for every type instrument and is why and how we distinguish between a clarinet and a trumpet. If you have amps and speakers that cant reproduce all recorded spectrum in a linear way (FR, time and level), you might need a DAC that will "fill it in" for you. It then, to some, sounds more "nicer".

But it aint the reality - right!? The same mechanical "fill" for anything you play... blää..

//
 
#416
Markw4 said:
@PMA, Virtually everything is sold on the basis of claims. You may ask your friend's opinion if they have something you are considering, but your friend's words are merely claims.

What I don't get is why is that so funny?
Click to expand...
This applies to a “common conversation” between friends, but some of us may also have professional colleagues who are able to support their claims by evidence. And to differ between subjective claims and recorded data. Is it so difficult to understand? 😉
 
#418
Markw4 said:
Maybe we find problems we don't have a good solution for amusing?
Click to expand...
What I find amusing is that the multitudes of op amps and feedback used in recording do not ruin the "Steinway sound" but if even a tiny amount of FB (not to mention op amp) is used after the DAC Steinway is no more recognizable. Instead having an IV stage after DAC that adds distortion retains the magic :rofl:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom