If the industry were to base its decisions on the needs of those with ESL speakers it won't be around for much longer.
No, but part of my listening tests are performed with Stax electrostatic earspeakers. How have you verified that the "details" you hear are actual details on the recording, not artefacts produced by your system? As I understand you have not measured your dacs.
Unfortunately, we are stuck in world where APx555 is the measurement standard. Thus the remaining problems in audio tend to be the things that APx555 does not measure well. Things like response to dynamics, signal-correlated noise, etc. Everyone just seems to assume that such things don't exist or don't matter. Until you hear a really good system you have no idea what is wrong with standard measurements.
IMHO belief that what matters most is what APx555 measures is a fantasy created by engineers. And its not the only such fantasy either.
IMHO belief that what matters most is what APx555 measures is a fantasy created by engineers. And its not the only such fantasy either.
I could but it won't change anything and in the unlikely event that it did I don't think I'd be too keen to occupy the same head space as you. It seems a little too rarefied for me.
I suggest to get back on topic instead of repeating a discussion you had dozens of times.
Well exactly: you have good and less good measuring DACS and can hardly tell them apart. But there still is a difference, right?!
I agree with Mark that, unless you think the rest of the system is unimportant (no magic by e.g. enhancing positives of the rest of the system, filling flaws of the rest etc), many times the subjective better sounding DAC could easily be the higher distorting one. IOW, what's the relation between e.g. low THD and SQ, where is the description of the boundary, how 'steep' is that boundary, are there other effects that mask it and are those boundaries the same for every person, system, acoustical properties etc?
That's a monumental task.
I just wanted to point out that the low THD goals most companies set and advertise with are a rather blunt, crude and arguably blind way to dictate perceived performance. It's a great help, but does not tell a complete picture, because the translation (controlled tests) afaik are also quite rough: I'm sure many will not hear the difference between many guitars, violins etc. I see a lot of wiggle room in those double blind tests, which also leave room to still keep listening instead of merely measuring.
Besides that, there are also generalizations to be made regarding DAC principle (multibit, single bit etc), as many point out here. Maybe they are not night and day, yet they can many times also not be ridiculed away, nor explained by e.g. looking at SNR, THD, Crosstalk, linearity, IMD or any other clear metric.
Afaik the Gedlee Metric is only implemented in a measuring system from Singapore, cslled Virtins, and while not a member of AES, seriously doubt any double blind tests have ever done in that area.
Maybe someone else can fill in?
May I suggest not to do that? It is off topic (but interesting). Please open a new thread.
May I point you to starting the subject about changing dac boards because of perceived SQ, before I went there? ;-)
Thanks, let's carry on.
Thanks, let's carry on.
OP said:
"Something magical and dreamlike happens when the whole OEM box -- say, classic Sony or Philips CDPs , with all those manhours of R&D -- is used. Something about the dream of totality".
I guess you agree with him, I do.
Part of the magic imho is the low power electronics (less interference/crosstalk etc) in combination with way better DAC execution.
That's why I think I also agree with OP that a version with a USB input would be less good in subjective SQ.
"Something magical and dreamlike happens when the whole OEM box -- say, classic Sony or Philips CDPs , with all those manhours of R&D -- is used. Something about the dream of totality".
I guess you agree with him, I do.
Part of the magic imho is the low power electronics (less interference/crosstalk etc) in combination with way better DAC execution.
That's why I think I also agree with OP that a version with a USB input would be less good in subjective SQ.
Turns out USB and or FIFO-buffered-SPDIF can give the best subjective SQ. This assumes galvanic isolation and other techniques are used to clean up noisy signals, power rails, grounds, etc.
No. The point is that even if there is an audible difference it is so small that it is not possible to make a correct choice confidently in ABx test. This means that possible preference is purely subjective and should not be generalized to be anything more than that.