it is a thing because the phenomenon is purely psychological i.e. pay more, be happy.
THD under 0.1% is irrelevant for listening to music where the listening experience is strongly subjective. It is relevant only for measurements.
to Markw4: IVX is very experienced in DACs field.
to Markw4: IVX is very experienced in DACs field.
I know he measures very carefully, but he doesn't listen.
Standard measurements such as AP stationary THD @ 1kHz are not sufficient to detect all audible problems in a dac IME. However, other people may be very satisfied with dacs IVX makes, I know I would not like that so-called 'analytical' sound. I have heard it from better ES9038Q2M dacs than his before.
Dear IVX,
I certainly don't want to hijack this thread or steer it in an unwanted direction. BUT:
Here's a question to Markw4, who seems to have a lot of experience designing and listening to DACs vs measuring them...
Don't you feel left down by the lack of correlation between measurements (ie 1kHz static THD tests, maybe even multi tone IMD tests) and the stuff you hear?
So here is my proposal to anyone that can do it (I certainly am not in the position of doing that atm because lack of proper measurement gear and a DAC):
Why not use the OUTPUT minus INPUT (revealing unwanted distortion, noise, call it whatever you like) measurement method using generated noise, real music, whatever - and trying to correlate these measurements to what you hear?
Wouldn't that bring us ALL forward if we were to determine a way of measuring DACs for the sake of engineering (given that measurements are much more easy to quantify and these would aid in development and repeatability)?
I have seen some attempts of folks that are trying to promote this kind of measurement method but instantly being turned down by the "design by listening" folks. Why is that? Are you not curious to bring this whole topic forward, both in terms of the engineering side, i.e. design by following design criteria and doing subsequent measurements and improving the design based on numbers AND at the same time having the listener's pleasure satisfied?
Am I missing something? If the measurements do not coincide with the listening experience, isn't it the time to seriously come up with new (well, not new - just different) means of measuring things?
My 2ct and all very much IMHO and at the same time ladled with questions and space for dsicussion...
I certainly don't want to hijack this thread or steer it in an unwanted direction. BUT:
Here's a question to Markw4, who seems to have a lot of experience designing and listening to DACs vs measuring them...
Don't you feel left down by the lack of correlation between measurements (ie 1kHz static THD tests, maybe even multi tone IMD tests) and the stuff you hear?
So here is my proposal to anyone that can do it (I certainly am not in the position of doing that atm because lack of proper measurement gear and a DAC):
Why not use the OUTPUT minus INPUT (revealing unwanted distortion, noise, call it whatever you like) measurement method using generated noise, real music, whatever - and trying to correlate these measurements to what you hear?
Wouldn't that bring us ALL forward if we were to determine a way of measuring DACs for the sake of engineering (given that measurements are much more easy to quantify and these would aid in development and repeatability)?
I have seen some attempts of folks that are trying to promote this kind of measurement method but instantly being turned down by the "design by listening" folks. Why is that? Are you not curious to bring this whole topic forward, both in terms of the engineering side, i.e. design by following design criteria and doing subsequent measurements and improving the design based on numbers AND at the same time having the listener's pleasure satisfied?
Am I missing something? If the measurements do not coincide with the listening experience, isn't it the time to seriously come up with new (well, not new - just different) means of measuring things?
My 2ct and all very much IMHO and at the same time ladled with questions and space for dsicussion...
Last edited:
Feel let down? Not exactly, its part of the human condition is all. Probably best to accept it as that and move on.
How would you propose to do that for a DAC? You always end up needing an ADC at some point, and you need it to be better than the DAC so you can use it to test or measure the DAC.
Its kind of like the problem of how do you go from being a cave man to sending a man to the moon? In other words, there is some bootstrapping that has to happen to make progress. Easy to ask, 'Why don't you just do it?" Much harder to start making the tools to make better tools, etc.
Sure. You want to start making tools to make better tools? Go for it. But maybe not realistic to do it all in one giant step.
I would need to see examples rather than generalizations. I don't think there is probably just one reason that applies in every single case I could think of.
I think I would answer, yes. Probably more than one thing.
How much do you know about measuring as it is? How well equipped are you to measure by modern electronics lab standards?
How skilled are you at listening? How good is your listening equipment now? Do you have a way of really knowing how good you will have to get at measuring to satisfy picky/skilled listeners?
Look, I can tell you there are people who have labs of equipment and who are getting pretty good at listening, at least well enough prepared to start making some progress like you speak of, but only little bit compared to how far there is to go. What they are finding with lots of hard work are now their trade secrets.
You want them to take that investment they made in time and money and give it away for free?
You want to invest your time and money and give away the results for free? Bravo! for you if you will do it.
Of course, when you start reporting your results here you should expect to be mercilessly attacked for sneakily trying to sell something, for lying, and or for imagining things that aren't real. Trust me on that 🙂
Last edited:
"Getting pretty good at listening"
Your hearing is not getting better with time, it's getting worse. So I find it pretty interesting that it is usually members who are in their retirement age (or approaching it) who claim to be better listeners or hear things others don't, when it's likely the other way around in reality.
Your hearing is not getting better with time, it's getting worse. So I find it pretty interesting that it is usually members who are in their retirement age (or approaching it) who claim to be better listeners or hear things others don't, when it's likely the other way around in reality.
Then you aren't paying attention as much as you are jumping to conclusions. Have you actually studied what happens to hearing as people age? They lose ability to hear high frequencies, and the threshold levels to hear mid and lower frequencies increase. It means the volume needs to be turned up a little to compensate remaining frequencies, that's all.
Another thing that may happen would be that as the ability to hear high frequencies decreases, the brain compensates by paying more attention to those frequencies that can still be heard.
In my particular case, I know without question I could hear more small details in sound 20 years ago, but I can still hear quite a bit. A few short years ago I sorted several popular audio opamps in a unity gain non inverting topology in order of measured distortion. Only I did it by ear double blind. There was one opamp I didn't finish sorting because my ears were ringing from listening so close to the speaker at fairly high volume, but I was given credit for the ones I did sort. If you find that hard to believe there is some discussion about that and also some of the usual arguing that goes along with it: https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/digital-source/354754-cd-playback-dac-9.html#post6217208
There is a podcast by a young degreed engineer who is employed as high end audio designer, and his views on measurements verses listening. I find myself impressed by how much he understands for being as young as he is. There are also some observations about people in audio forums 🙂 Podcast: Beware the measurements! | Darko.Audio
Last edited: