I would take the word (or at least give it more consideration) of someone actively involved in the real world testing/use of an item (no matter what it might be) than one who just assumes it won’t be any different than another because the specs are similar (or past the supposed range of human interpretation)
I for one appreciate different opinions because with enough of them one can form a broad scope of performance.
In other words if 19 out of 20 say ‘this dac is better served as a paperweight’ then guess what.....there’s a pretty good chance it’s true.
Opinions aren’t fact but can still be very helpful to others, and I really think the paranoia that mark is trying to set us up for ‘the kill’ is a bit overblown.
I for one appreciate different opinions because with enough of them one can form a broad scope of performance.
In other words if 19 out of 20 say ‘this dac is better served as a paperweight’ then guess what.....there’s a pretty good chance it’s true.
Opinions aren’t fact but can still be very helpful to others, and I really think the paranoia that mark is trying to set us up for ‘the kill’ is a bit overblown.
Bob, A bit overblown, eh? 🙂 Do you ever wonder why there are so many arguments about what people can and can't hear, and about whether or not standard measurements show everything there is worth knowing? I wonder about it sometimes.
I've pretty much decided the best theory I can think of is that of "the overwhelmingly convincing illusion of naive reality takes precedence over everything else." What each individual hears is to them all there is. Also fits in with the principle of WYSIATI.
Of course, we all know that published hearing research is based on statistical measurements, but much like most people consider themselves better than average drivers, most diyaudio members consider themselves to be able to hear all there is to hear: its impossible that their brains are discarding any audible information before it reaches their conscious awareness because they would know it if that were the case -- NOT!
(A more recent version is that they hear everything there is to hear, but don't care about small defects. Sounds like sour grapes to me.)
In reality, not everyone hears/listens the same, and some people, even if they are diyaudio enthusiasts, are going to hear less than some other people. Those who hear less are not going to know if their brains are discarding potentially audible information.
A confounding factor is that 'confronting' someone with DBT at which the victim will probably fail is believed to self-evident proof of "no real difference heard." Again, the guys that hear less than some others have been fooled by their own naivety. Failing ad hoc DBT confrontation is not proof of "no audible difference," but they just can't see how, so it must simply be an excuse for failure. The same people drawing such conclusions have not kept up with research into how brains behave and how it complicates accurate DBT of audibility.
Once again, human nature is to reject evidence that goes against one's already firmly held beliefs.
IMO, humans can actually be quite insane (if the sanity is believed to be same as rationality). Why can humans, always other people of course, be so insane? Best theory I have heard, and its only a theory, is that there is some benefit for survival of tribes (rather than individuals) that accounts for it.
I've pretty much decided the best theory I can think of is that of "the overwhelmingly convincing illusion of naive reality takes precedence over everything else." What each individual hears is to them all there is. Also fits in with the principle of WYSIATI.
Of course, we all know that published hearing research is based on statistical measurements, but much like most people consider themselves better than average drivers, most diyaudio members consider themselves to be able to hear all there is to hear: its impossible that their brains are discarding any audible information before it reaches their conscious awareness because they would know it if that were the case -- NOT!
(A more recent version is that they hear everything there is to hear, but don't care about small defects. Sounds like sour grapes to me.)
In reality, not everyone hears/listens the same, and some people, even if they are diyaudio enthusiasts, are going to hear less than some other people. Those who hear less are not going to know if their brains are discarding potentially audible information.
A confounding factor is that 'confronting' someone with DBT at which the victim will probably fail is believed to self-evident proof of "no real difference heard." Again, the guys that hear less than some others have been fooled by their own naivety. Failing ad hoc DBT confrontation is not proof of "no audible difference," but they just can't see how, so it must simply be an excuse for failure. The same people drawing such conclusions have not kept up with research into how brains behave and how it complicates accurate DBT of audibility.
Once again, human nature is to reject evidence that goes against one's already firmly held beliefs.
IMO, humans can actually be quite insane (if the sanity is believed to be same as rationality). Why can humans, always other people of course, be so insane? Best theory I have heard, and its only a theory, is that there is some benefit for survival of tribes (rather than individuals) that accounts for it.
Well, he is very vocal in the sense that he obviously like to to convey his opinions - not sure that the same thing as knowledge.
How can we know? Any reference to products that is generally available and accepted as really good which he is the verified designer of?
//
No, and if there were I probably wouldn't tell you since I prefer to keep my anonymity. However, if Jam keeps pestering me then maybe one day, if it every happens I'll let you know. Beside all the work that would entail, if I did do something like that and if it were well received then you think maybe I would be regarded with the same courtesy and respect as JC gets around here? How about as compared to John Westlake, who has produced many successful dac designs? Do you think skeptical people believe either of them when they talk about subjective sound quality? I'll tell you the answer, they are ignored and or argued with when they say things they believe, but which other people disbelieve. I already get plenty of that as is.
Last edited:
Once you distinguish the difference between what people hear vs perceive, then you won't need to wonder anymore.
Your opinion built on flawed narrative of not distinguishing what people hear vs perceive.
He's probably the most qualified to answer my original question. Who is he and what DACs has he designed?
I can perceive "Live vs Memorex" so easily, it's effortless. Someone plucks a single note on a Uke while sitting on the trunk of their car, as I ride past maybe 10-20 yards away on a bicycle - I immediately and unquestioningly perceive "sound of real instrument"; start looking around for its source.
While on the other hand we fiddle with bits and kHz, mics and electrostatics in order to come close to tricking that perception (the one that "just works") into believing it is, when it's not. It's Fun getting close, only to be slaughtered by the next aural perception of real...
While on the other hand we fiddle with bits and kHz, mics and electrostatics in order to come close to tricking that perception (the one that "just works") into believing it is, when it's not. It's Fun getting close, only to be slaughtered by the next aural perception of real...
Last edited:
Markw4, I read all the published hearing research result with a grain of salt.
I said this before on the other thread, but ABX test can't really measure audible ability. Since we can't listen to music from 2 different sources at the same time, we have to compare the sound in our memory to the sound we are currently listening. The sound in our memory is immediately and easily altered, therefore fair comparison is impossible. The only thing we can tell on ABX test is something we can clearly verbalize, such as if the sounds come from left or right. We can also verbalize something like harshness if trained enough. The very subtle difference of DAC can't be verbalized in our brain, except someone who has been very well trained and has an extensive vocabulary about the sound of DAC.
I said this before on the other thread, but ABX test can't really measure audible ability. Since we can't listen to music from 2 different sources at the same time, we have to compare the sound in our memory to the sound we are currently listening. The sound in our memory is immediately and easily altered, therefore fair comparison is impossible. The only thing we can tell on ABX test is something we can clearly verbalize, such as if the sounds come from left or right. We can also verbalize something like harshness if trained enough. The very subtle difference of DAC can't be verbalized in our brain, except someone who has been very well trained and has an extensive vocabulary about the sound of DAC.
Last edited:
This is only because professionally recorded materials are "processed". If you record your musical instrument in your house and play back with your system, it is almost impossible to tell the difference from 20 yards.
Blimey, a more ego pumping wiki page I have not seen for a while. Can't see anything you would consider reference grade in his list....
I've heard that the pro- ject stuff is supposed to be pretty good for the money?....have no idea first hand though.
A self taught designer that works towards a PhD without ever graduating or under graduating from an university.
Good to see you, right now I'm streaming Test Dept's live 2016 Redux concert to relieve the stress.
He's achieved a lot more than you in audio electronics and he's brought a lot
more to the forum.
What you bring here is mainly a negative attitude ready to tear anyone down
at first opportunity.
TCD