Don't know where you are located in the US. I am in Auburn, CA (a bit North of Sacramento). Sometimes we have visitors here who want to see for themselves what the system sounds like. If you are within visiting distance I would invite you to make the trip. All the better if you would like to bring your own dac or other device here to plug into the system and see how it sounds compared to what we are mostly listening to. IME, there is nothing better than seeing for one's self. And, I think you would find it very interesting.
Last edited:
Thank you for the invitation.
I am on the opposite side of the country. But, I have family very close to you, in Foresthill. I would like to take you up on that the next time I am out there.
Sorry yet, not you personnaly but the group (one if you prefer perhaps in english) of believers that close themselves in a belief asking and having the answer already. That's faith. That's why I talk about lipstick, because the basement on which is made the tower of argument is made of clay. Looks strong but isn't
I knowperfectly what science and epistemology are, you don't. When you choose some facts and chosen datas to valid a theory, it is not science anymore. You mistake with the process of testing a theory by repeated same datas given by the experiment process. It is the opposed process you enligth with ASR. The theory should be tested by experiments which same repeated datas valid the theory. By choosing datas to valid a theory and make the repeated experiments to valid the datas that are partially chosen you make the opposit or what are making some dishonest Pharma industries to sell pils. It smells like science but isn't. It is not because one put crap in N°5 box that it is smelling good to trivially illustrate it. Not an attack. We had something like that in some 80s magazines with THD of amps or rigth spl line from 20 hz to 20k hz to sort out the loudspeakers. If only it was so simple. Even the reccords you listen to cheats to make it better but not true if the word transparent has a sense.
Discusion closed for me, it smells the trolling.
Last edited:
You just can't help yourself with ad hominem. Entwining blatent fallacy into your arguments is not persuasive to anyone but yourself.
Chill out. It is OK to converse in a civil manner.
Okay. But they cannot be used to prove "audible transparency" to all humans on earth. The existing science doesn't support such a claim.
you speak for the others now Terrie? , not better. Your rethoric of the post is weak and you fall shorts of more arguments, you fall in what you reproach to me. Call that poor rethoric and I can say it in latin to makes it more serious if you prefer. Btw I tried to help you, not myself and a civilian way, which is rare in the world we are living in sudenly. If I must agree with you to be civilian, sorry to disagree.
Byyyyyyye ! (nothing against you, believe me, just all that ASR crap of sheeps talking about wool is fatiguing; all is not to throw out but it is very Cargo Cult for most of the members and their victims.)
Byyyyyyye ! (nothing against you, believe me, just all that ASR crap of sheeps talking about wool is fatiguing; all is not to throw out but it is very Cargo Cult for most of the members and their victims.)
There are no outliers on a bell curve - they are outside the curve. It's common and good measure to ignore outliers as there is probably something false or fishy with these individuals and you don't want them to mess up your life.
//
No. Most commonly outliers are defined as more than +- 2 or 3 standard deviations from average, which about the top and bottom 2%.
In the diagram below, the top 2% in terms of IQ would equate to just more than about a 130 IQ. To put it another way, out of 100 random people, it would probably be about 2 people.
Of course, if you have a big enough group of people, say a city of 100,000 people, you would expect to have about 100 people who are one in a thousand. This is quite expected; it would only be fishy if you didn't find any people like that in a large city.
In the diagram below, the top 2% in terms of IQ would equate to just more than about a 130 IQ. To put it another way, out of 100 random people, it would probably be about 2 people.
Of course, if you have a big enough group of people, say a city of 100,000 people, you would expect to have about 100 people who are one in a thousand. This is quite expected; it would only be fishy if you didn't find any people like that in a large city.
Last edited:
I don't understand why a dac which has a 115 db noise floor would sound better than one with 90db...
As rock music most difference is 6db, pop, 3db, classical 22db... max so when the music playing you not only don't hear the 'background' and you even less hear the dac floor noise.
Maybe if it had 85 db I would say this is border of acceptable.
Each 3db the sound pressure double
As rock music most difference is 6db, pop, 3db, classical 22db... max so when the music playing you not only don't hear the 'background' and you even less hear the dac floor noise.
Maybe if it had 85 db I would say this is border of acceptable.
Each 3db the sound pressure double
Its just a way of illustrating statistical principles without the baggage of audio arguments.
However, statistical principles also apply to understanding published audibility thresholds, as well as to understanding the term "outlier" as it is commonly used in scientific research.
However, statistical principles also apply to understanding published audibility thresholds, as well as to understanding the term "outlier" as it is commonly used in scientific research.
Last edited:
SINAD/$ could be one criterion. (Does class-leading SINAD = 'deep black silent background'? Or is -96dB SINAD enough to be perfectly silent?)
'Pleasant enough sound quality'/$ could be another. That would beg the question, 'Can you hear the difference between a Schiit Modi and a Topping E30 II'?
Another could be 'musicality', which would probably translate to 'sounds most like an analogue source but with complete lack of audible noise' or deviation from flat frequency response. Purely subjective, might not be provable other than listening and deciding for yourself.
Another criterion could be 'accuracy' or 'transparency', which arguably all competent current-design DACs are. (Those $5 USB things with the pink and green jacks don't count here.)
I posted my thoughts on the two Topping DACs I've owned so far. They're in use every day. Neither make me grit my teeth, even though I'm sure there are 'better sounding' DACs in the world (for a price, probably).
I tried an Apple USB-C DAC thingy with my Raspberry Pi and didn't like the sound of it. It sounded 'small' and 'weak' to me ('uninvolving?')
I put my Topping E30 II Lite back in my system and that sounded more pleasing to me.
I also have a Behringer UCA-202 (USB ADC/DAC with max res of 16bit/48kHz). That sounds pretty good, considering it cost about $35. At least as good as any CD or SACD player I've had over the last 40 years.
Now the question remains, 'Is it worthwhile to spend $1000 on a DAC if all you want it for is enjoyment of musical playback in your home?'
What about soundstage dimensions/properties, and spatial localization precision? That's one of the main areas that matters to a lot of people.
There is also what people refer to as "open" sound. It means low level details of instruments and or of vocals are not overlapping/blended together.
Last edited:
I am going to buy a pcm58 pcm/kit from AliExpress to see if it beats the akm4396 in the Emu0404 (highly modified)...
I will try my best to build this under five hundred and see if it sounds anywhere close to the radio diffusion PCM56k I had.
I will try my best to build this under five hundred and see if it sounds anywhere close to the radio diffusion PCM56k I had.
I had a pcm56k machine which had all the bells and whistles for radio diffusion, compressor, expanders, etc for radio.
I modified it with a tube buffer and this is what had the best bass of any dac I heard,
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005008239926319.html
Look at this suggestion of dac (Chinese) it is a R2R, quite affordable, maybe it is good as the pcm58?
I modified it with a tube buffer and this is what had the best bass of any dac I heard,
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005008239926319.html
Look at this suggestion of dac (Chinese) it is a R2R, quite affordable, maybe it is good as the pcm58?