Why does it need to end there? IF you begin with a system and it begins as dull, do you replace a distortion creating device that gives it some life with another accurate device that causes it to sound duller? Reproduction systems generate chemical reactions producing emotions. Ideal/transparency doesn't necessarily cause the production of chemicals unilaterally in all of us as pleasurable or otherwise. The problem I see in modifying or corrupting a closer perception of reality is that it can become tiresome as developing a character, hence oftentimes changing systems.
To be clear I attempt to create devices as cleanly as possible, hence with low harmonic distortion. The problem is that harmonic distortion has become so low that there is no argument by those demanding DBT as remotely relevant to question any longer. The failure to acknowledge any other mechanism as possibly affecting perceived sonics questions your motives for being here. Why do you care? I for one don't trust capacitance as not necessarily limited to DA. Not to suggest it isn'r necessary or useful.
The demands for DBT are not related to harmonic distortion or any other possible mechanism affecting perceived sonics. DBTs are required to have objective evidence that there is an audible difference. Claims based on only sighted listening tests are useless.
DBT begins with some postulate intended to generate evidence if the postulate is true or false... it doesn't assert that audible differences don't exist because the test apparatus can't be known to permit it. In other words the postulate needed to create the apparatus of differential selection between A or B may not be true as reflecting the cause for real hearing differences. Why this seems untenable for some to accept is interesting.
Last edited:
I would postulate that any DBT is much more valuable than sighted listening test. Why this seems untenable for some to accept is interesting.
And the "D" can be left out of DBT. Basic AB testing where levels are matched to 0.1db and all visual cues about the DUTs are hidden is sufficient. No test apparatus is needed.
Last edited:
Current DBT testing seems completely redundant with current THD numbers, hence "much more valuable" than "no value" seems a stretch. Do you believe that ASR measurements on DAC's has any merit from a DBT perspective? I don't see how.
I would also postulate that DBT testing is good for dismissing (or confirming) postulates... but thats about it. You can't dismiss the hearing. Of course you can postulate why you can dismiss the hearing.
I would also postulate that DBT testing is good for dismissing (or confirming) postulates... but thats about it. You can't dismiss the hearing. Of course you can postulate why you can dismiss the hearing.
Last edited:
Why do you link DBTs with THD? As I said they are needed to have objective evidence of any audible difference as subjective claims based on sighted listening have no objective value. Claims based on sighted listening have no merit in relation to ASR measurements on DACs.
It isn't my claim that "Claims based on sighted listening have no merit in relation to ASR measurements on DACs.", my claim is that DBT testing wouldn't remotely identify differences in most DAC's measured by ASR. What makes one DAC better than the next if they can't be differentiated by DBT testing? What is the point of ASR testing, other than to pick out the insanely bad ones?
"Sighted listening" seems asserting irrevocable biased judgement to assert having "no objective value". It secondly asserts that all "objects" are known, seeming of some divine inspiration on your part. Not everyone needs your x to act in some way y.
"Sighted listening" seems asserting irrevocable biased judgement to assert having "no objective value". It secondly asserts that all "objects" are known, seeming of some divine inspiration on your part. Not everyone needs your x to act in some way y.
But sighted tests unfortunately are horribly biased. It's not because the tests are necessarily flawed, but it's just human nature to respond to something that offers both auditory and visual stimulation at the same time. If in a DBT, participants cannot hear a difference but measurements do show a difference then I'd argue the difference is below the threshold of audibility, which is precisely why some folks don't like DBTs because it exposes that simple fact.
If you have issues with ASR testing, please take it up at ASR. No need to sulk here.
DBTs are only brought up when somebody makes a claim based on uncontrolled sighted listening only as it is riddled with biases. Furthermore inconsistencies in test setup (e.g. unmatched levels) easily mislead listeners. There is no reason why sighted listening would reveal differences that somehow are lost when visual cues are removed.
Test was done with extremely large caps
Pretty basic
After 40 years of hearing hundreds of signal chains.
AC coupling is AC coupling most the issue between impedance
is the high pass function that results.
Make the cap large.
Literally was over this junk years ago.
And sometimes its that simple.....get over it.
caps are rated in hours and temperature.
take a wild guess which ones dry up first.
2000 hrs or 10,000 hrs 85c or 105c
hmmmm
Pretty basic
After 40 years of hearing hundreds of signal chains.
AC coupling is AC coupling most the issue between impedance
is the high pass function that results.
Make the cap large.
Literally was over this junk years ago.
And sometimes its that simple.....get over it.
caps are rated in hours and temperature.
take a wild guess which ones dry up first.
2000 hrs or 10,000 hrs 85c or 105c
hmmmm
Because I'm tired of seeing the same meme being posted, uncritically, in all threads that deal with distortion of any kind along with the implied notion that those of us who believe otherwise are ignorant. See Post #32 and #72 for examples.
I've made it completely obvious that I consider many other factors than THD, including three types of two-tone IMD, multi-tone IMD, frequency response, residual hum & noise, etc. You can check out my product pages if you're curious about what I measure. Have a look in the Performance Graphs tab.
I don't trust boutique capacitors either. The ones I've measured so far have actually been further away from an idea capacitor than the off-the-shelf parts I can buy from Mouser/Digikey.
Tom
Those who conclude others ignorant appear more likely lacking the intellect of reason to correct that form of ignorance in themselves. Claims don't become tiresome for me. The presentation of a claim isn't required of "critical" vetting in this forum, and nothing prevents anyone here from engaging in vetting by leaving this forum if boredom becomes of issue.
The tests you suggest as being all encompassing seem not dissimilar from tests by ASR. There is nothing wrong with publishing results that expresses quality whereupon distortions are 40dB better than humanly possible to detect by using DBT "critical" testing if that were the case. I commend you for it. Yet if you go around complaining about simple.claims being uncritical one begins to question your motives. What are you claiming as the "critical" benefit of your products being as good as you might correctly claim,
The tests you suggest as being all encompassing seem not dissimilar from tests by ASR. There is nothing wrong with publishing results that expresses quality whereupon distortions are 40dB better than humanly possible to detect by using DBT "critical" testing if that were the case. I commend you for it. Yet if you go around complaining about simple.claims being uncritical one begins to question your motives. What are you claiming as the "critical" benefit of your products being as good as you might correctly claim,
This discussion started out with the claim that DA caused distortion and or sonic smearing because charge was released from the electrolyte post its associated stimulus event. A universally accepted model of DA was subjected to a sim and the distortion and any phase changes or smearing shown to be inconsequential or non-existent. Electrolytic capacitors have been maligned for decades by claims that DA smeared and veiled the sound despite measurement evidence that it introduced no additional components of any kind into the sound. But, the same folks claiming electrolytics are problematic despite no measurements to back their position also decry DBTs as inadequate. I can’t think of any other scientific or engineering endeavour outside of audio where rational methodology is so thoroughly rejected in favour of subjectivism.
Some of the very things we have touched on in this thread are also evident in the feedback debate:- https://hifisonix.com/technical/the-case-for-feedback/
Some of the very things we have touched on in this thread are also evident in the feedback debate:- https://hifisonix.com/technical/the-case-for-feedback/
Visible distortions are when you can see what was soldered in.
Last edited:
If you replace one type of cap with another and you get measurable problems, I’d argue the reasons are because of well understood mechanisms eg ESL or ESR, or if in a S+H or dual slope converter, DA. We all know about how important cap selection is wrt regulator decoupling. I see a lot of designs that use big expensive Teflon coupling caps that would be the component of choice for many designers but because of their size, make magnificent antennas ideal for picking up hum and RFI.
Pick your poison!
Pick your poison!
It's very possible that higher value carbon pots have worse distortion. Carbon rod resistors have horrible voltage coefficients and vibration sensitivity for fun.
When no significant advances are made in any Science, discussions switch to irrelevant details, imagined properties, etc.
Amplifiers have become incredibly good, flat, clean, you-name-it, a couple bucks TDA2030 or LM1875 (just to give an example)far surpassed whatever any human ear can detect, and that decades ago.
So discussion turned to cables, capacitors and The Pope's underwear.
Or plain outrageous claims.
Amplifiers have become incredibly good, flat, clean, you-name-it, a couple bucks TDA2030 or LM1875 (just to give an example)far surpassed whatever any human ear can detect, and that decades ago.
So discussion turned to cables, capacitors and The Pope's underwear.
Or plain outrageous claims.
"R&D Stories: The Role of Resonance in Audio Clarity" is rather amusing. The capacitor appears to have a mechanical resonance above 10kHz. My first thought was to surround it with polyfill to dampen it. But I'm thinking a mechanical resonant frequency will change with size, so having two or three smaller capacitors at half or a third the capacitance in parallel may push the resonance into the ultrasonic range, yet have the same capacitance.
As a bonus, three "ordinary" capacitors would surely give a cost saving compared to a single specialty audio cap. Then again, using standard industrial caps dismisses the role of reducing "visual distortion" that's so important in high-end audio.
As a bonus, three "ordinary" capacitors would surely give a cost saving compared to a single specialty audio cap. Then again, using standard industrial caps dismisses the role of reducing "visual distortion" that's so important in high-end audio.