How can DAC's have a SOUND SIGNATURE if they measure as transparent?

[StandardModel]

A double-blind test (DBT) is not for you to prove anything to anyone else ... especially not us. A DBT is to illuminate YOU to your true abilities or lack thereof. I apologize if I didn't make that more clear.

We have seen people labor under the delusions fostered by non-scientific and uncontrolled comparisons. That's not saying that they don't have the most incredibly sincere beliefs, it's simply that they have too little understanding of how the human mind works, the biases upon which it depends, and the controls that need to be placed upon it.. Their sincerity, therefore, is incorrectly applied.

If you wonder why I (and others) insist on these principles, it's not because we wish to have an adversarial relationship with you. Absolutely the opposite. It's because we want you to know more about yourself, about audio, and about the methods used by disingenuous people.

If you had been blind and found a cure, would you not want others to also be cured? Would you not want them to "see the light", so to speak? I certainly would ... or I should say, I certainly do. The members here feel the same way.

Join us ... please.

Jim

Jim,

This is a fun hobby for me. I have no desire to get into any kind of a dispute with anyone, particularly the pejorative ones with ad hominem attacks.
I'm well aware that double blind tests are the gold standard and would never dispute that.
My issue is that one should not prejudge another's subjective opinion until and unless a double blind test has been performed. Some seem to be convinced that they know in advance what a double blind test will reveal before it has been performed. That seems unreasonable to me. I will happily join you but remember what Groucho Marx said "I'd never belong to a club that had me as one of its members".

Do you disagree?

StandardModel

 

[StandardModel]

You say the hottest DAC... so does it just run very hot, is it going to overheat or something, or does it double as a heater in winter?


JSmith

I like the Gif! I didn't say that. That was Steve Huff.

 

[Jim Taylor]

My issue is that one should not prejudge another's subjective opinion until and unless a double blind test has been performed. Some seem to be convinced that they know in advance what a double blind test will reveal before it has been performed.

I understand how you feel.

Let's say I came upon a pot of hot water. I want to know how hot it is. I put in your finger, and it was severely scalded. The person to my right put in their finger, and it was severely scalded. The person to my left did the same, and the result was the same.

Now our friend @StandardModel comes along, and wants to put his finger in the water to see how hot it is. Do we know in advance what will happen to him if he puts his finger in the hot water?

I believe that we do.

Jim

 

[StandardModel]

You say the hottest DAC... so does it just run very hot, is it going to overheat or something, or does it double as a heater in winter?


JSmith

I understand how you feel.

Let's say I came upon a pot of hot water. I want to know how hot it is. I put in your finger, and it was severely scalded. The person to my right put in their finger, and it was severely scalded. The person to my left did the same, and the result was the same.

Now our friend @StandardModel comes along, and wants to put his finger in the water to see how hot it is. Do we know in advance what will happen to him if he puts his finger in the hot water?

I believe that we do.

Jim

Interesting but flawed analogy. A more accurate one would be sometimes the water is hot and sometimes it's cold (each Dac is different) but you don't know in advance which it is. Our friend (me) takes a very small admittedly imperfect sample of the water and says it's cold. The observers say it's hot because it was hot the last three times they put their finger in. Is the water hot or cold?

 

[JSmith]

That was Steve Huff.

Oh ok, makes sense... he's always full of hot air.

So these "reviews"... where are the measurements?

Discrete R-2R... meh.

Monochrome OLED display... couldn't pony up for colour?

It is claimed these specs are from;

The specification was evaluated using an Audio Precision APx Analyzer under PCM192kHz, SPDIF input, and balanced XLR output conditions.

THD+N
Better than 110 dB, 20Hz – 20kHz

Crosstalk
Better than 123dB, A-Wt.

Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR)
Better than 110dB, A-Wt.

Harmony DAC Tech Specs | Laiv

Delve into the technical prowess of our Harmony DAC with our comprehensive specs page. Explore the intricate details and advanced features meticulously designed to deliver unparalleled audio performance. Elevate your audio experience to new heights with our precision-engineered Harmony DAC.

www.laiv.audio

JSmith

 

[Jim Taylor]

Interesting but flawed analogy. A more accurate one would be sometimes the water is hot and sometimes it's cold but you don't know in advance which it is. Our friend (me) takes a very small admittedly imperfect sample of the water and says it's cold. The observers say it's hot because it was hot the last three times they put their finger in. Is the water hot or cold?

I love analogies, but admittedly many of mine are flawed. I am a little too enthusiastic about using them, and feel pressured to get them into a post quickly.

What can I say? I'm not perfect.

However, your analogy is equally flawed, if not more so.

The tools that we use are known scientific principles, proven by years of successful applications. In these cases, we can say that the water is always hot, as in the necessary restrictions on the design of nuclear power plants, or the requirements to successfully launch a rocket and its payload to the outer planets. Consistency has been exhibited, or some would say proven.
As in all things engineering, there are tolerances involved; nothing is absolutely perfect. But the tolerances are within such limits that the results ARE PREDICTABLE. Nuclear power plants have been built, all around the world, and if you ask the authorities whether they can predict what will happen if you do this or do that, they can tell you with accuracy. By the same token, rocket after rocket has been sent into orbit or beyond, and the predictability has become quite astonishing. (I was in school before Sputnik 1 achieved orbit, so to me all this latest use of rocketry is quite amazing.)

All this use of analogies is really beside the point. The real point is; do you trust science and logic that has been successfully proven, time and time again ... or not?

Jim

p.s. - I figured that there was a reason that you had adopted the username "Standard Model". After all, it successfully predicted the W and Z bosons.

 

[Jasperous]

Folks, we are getting trolled… right? The OP isn’t actually serious… right? Any topping or smsl would absolutely destroy this thing

 

[ta240]

The list above have pretty much captured most if not all of the “usual suspects” when it comes to shrills and hypes…

I'll admit I do enjoy an occasional enthusiastic, Audiopheliac review or even watching Paul from PS Audio waxing on about different subjects, however it is still hard to see ones of that level quoted as experts. I've seen Danny R's wisdom quoted online and his statements about speakers treated as fact.

In a past life I worked in sales and I've encountered a huge variety of salespeople from terrible to very talented and all would love to be the salesman that people think of as their friend, the expert. And that is what so many have achieved on social media.

It reminds me of the Fyre, where all the influencers hyped it up and then didn't show because it was a train wreck. The hot DAC of 2024 will be cooling in no time and the next hot product will be making the rounds. All these people raving about it will be raving about how amazing the next 'in' component is. Anyone remember the Vista Spark? I don't even see much about Chord DACs anymore. The Mojo used to be everywhere. If each new product were as much more amazing than the old choices then our minds should be completely blown by the output of our systems.
It is the old joke about MPG improvement add-ons they sold/sell for cars. If you put all of them on your car you have to stop every 10 miles and drain gas off or the tank will overflow.

 

[Human Bass]

Tarantino DAC, they really invested in the feet lol

 

[Jim Taylor]

Folks, we are getting trolled… right? The OP isn’t actually serious… right? Any topping or smsl would absolutely destroy this thing

I know what it looks like, but I prefer to give new posters the benefit of the doubt. If @StandardModel is a troll, he will eventually give himself away. Until then, one must consider the thousands of visitors that read this forum every day. They may be laboring under the same misconceptions that are in evidence here, and a solid, logical, point-by-point refutation of Anti-Science Mania can help them to no end.

Jim

 

[tmtomh]

How is someone a member here for more than five years and then starts a thread like this?

 

[Jim Taylor]

How is someone a member here for more than five years and then starts a thread like this?

That is a not-uncommon troll technique. That's why I said, " I know what it looks like ...". Still I'm always harping about "proof" this and "proof" that, so I guess I'll just have to wait for @StandardModel to prove his intentions.

Jim

 

[tmtomh]

That is a not-uncommon troll technique. That's why I said, " I know what it looks like ...". Still I'm always harping about "proof" this and "proof" that, so I guess I'll just have to wait for @StandardModel to prove his intentions.

Jim

I totally hear you RE trolling techniques. It just seems weird that someone would have joined all the way back in March 2019 and waited until now to do it.

 

[StandardModel]

Jim,

Sorry, not a troll. I have been a lurker for five years. My screen name is as a result of my admiration for Richard Feynman whom I considered to be the best physicist of the 20th century. As an engineer of long standing I was trained on scientific principles and statistical evidence. That's one reason why I agree with you that double blind testing is the gold standard.

Again, I have no wish to offend anyone.

I'm just pointing out once again that prejudgement of the equivalence of different samples without measurement of them is not very reliable. The underlying fallacy in your analogies is the implied condition that any given Dac being tested will measure no better than a $100 Dac in each case i.e., all Dacs over $100 dollars in cost will perform equivalently. From a statistical standpoint you can't say that for certain until you've measured all Dacs or at least all Dacs with the same components and software. Look, you may be right that they are all equivalent and that spending over $100 is a giant waste of money but until you've measured them all, you can't say that for certain i.e, a confidence level of 1.0.

No one, least of all me, is trying to contest scientific principles. I adhere to them rigorously. There is no scientific principle which states that you can measure some products in a marketplace and guarantee that there is nothing better now nor will there be anything better in the future. We often used to talk about the fact that the patent office was going to be shut down in the late 1890's because everything of importance had been invented. You write about fixed designs with tolerances being the only variable. What you are implying is that there is really only one design for a Dac and the only variable is component tolerances. I've spent years working on wavelets. That data sampling approach would make a fantastic Dac by focusing on sampling areas having the greatest rate of change in a given time period and wouldn't be limited by the current design approaches. Still, I'm open to being proven wrong. New and unforeseen designs and approaches do come along that upend prior knowledge all the time.
I think we've beaten this dead horse enough or as Mark Twain once said "There is little to be learned from the second kick of the mule." I had no idea that I would engender such controversy. This is my last post on the subject.

PS I was in high school as well when Sputnik was launched. As for nuclear reactors and water coolant, what about thorium based pebble reactors- no water coolant only graphite-moderated, gas coolant.

I love analogies, but admittedly many of mine are flawed. I am a little too enthusiastic about using them, and feel pressured to get them into a post quickly.

What can I say? I'm not perfect.

However, your analogy is equally flawed, if not more so.

The tools that we use are known scientific principles, proven by years of successful applications. In these cases, we can say that the water is always hot, as in the necessary restrictions on the design of nuclear power plants, or the requirements to successfully launch a rocket and its payload to the outer planets. Consistency has been exhibited, or some would say proven.
As in all things engineering, there are tolerances involved; nothing is absolutely perfect. But the tolerances are within such limits that the results ARE PREDICTABLE. Nuclear power plants have been built, all around the world, and if you ask the authorities whether they can predict what will happen if you do this or do that, they can tell you with accuracy. By the same token, rocket after rocket has been sent into orbit or beyond, and the predictability has become quite astonishing. (I was in school before Sputnik 1 achieved orbit, so to me all this latest use of rocketry is quite amazing.)

All this use of analogies is really beside the point. The real point is; do you trust science and logic that has been successfully proven, time and time again ... or not?

Jim

p.s. - I figured that there was a reason that you had adopted the username "Standard Model". After all, it successfully predicted the W and Z bosons.

 

[Brian Hall]

I understand how you feel.

Let's say I came upon a pot of hot water. I want to know how hot it is. I put in your finger, and it was severely scalded. The person to my right put in their finger, and it was severely scalded. The person to my left did the same, and the result was the same.

Now our friend @StandardModel comes along, and wants to put his finger in the water to see how hot it is. Do we know in advance what will happen to him if he puts his finger in the hot water?

I believe that we do.

Jim

The question is if he would be honest about getting burned or if he would insist on how great the water made his finger feel.

 

[voodooless]

he second is accuracy of reproduction meaning the conversion has to be able to handle frequency transients very, very quickly. Neither of these are easy to do electrically. In theory it's easy you just have an infinite power supply and you can get completely vertical transients. In the real world, these things don't exist.

In the real world, your 81 and are lucky if your ears reach to 10 kHz. Transients are the least of your worries.

Also in the the real world, this $79 DAC has no issue with any transients whatsoever:

For these things, there is no need to spend $ 2700, never mind $ 10000

If you think that the quality of a DAC is defined by its ability to generate a perfect square wave, you’re sorely mistaken.

 

[Brian Hall]

I vote troll. Anyone who has been reading the posts here who thinks paying $2,700 for a DAC makes sense or gives any possible benefit is either a troll or (can't say, I don't want to get banned because we have to be nice instead of too honest).

 

[VintageFlanker]

Chacun à son goût.

What that supposed to mean ?

It means each to his own taste.

No it doesn't.

This doesn't mean anything in French. Or somehow it does, in an incorrect way. I guess you would mean "À chacun son goût", or more "Chacun ses goûts", or perhaps "Chacun a son goût", that is not grammatically incorrect but sounds terrible...

 

[ObjectiveSubjectivist]

It looks nice outside and inside, that's for sure.

 

[napfkuchen]

It looks nice outside and inside, that's for sure.

You can argue about taste... The manufacturer has obviously tried to visually differentiate itself from the competition. I don't like the gold accents at all. But what bothers me even more is the lack of symmetry and the use of 3 feet.