Do all DACs sound more or less the same?

[elcorso]

The Himalayan salt color comes from Monocled Cobra pee, better than Sildenafil^®, it works even under the very low exterior temperatures on the Himalayan winter.

 

Now we have more or less the same variety of exotic foods on the market as audio & digital cable brands. Did you ever tried the USB Pink Quantic Cable?

 

Is wonderful and 3D...!

 

Roch

[christopher3393]

Whoops, looks like I just stepped in another pile of reductionism. Are you guys everywhere on this site? No difference in salt, cola,dacs, amps, cables. People like me are such fools. Do you really enjoy pounding your point home over and over and over? Why don't you create the universal affordable sensible testable system that we can all abide by and hear the same way unless our ears are faulty. Then come up with ear correction. And our rooms are faulty. Let's standardize them to the best objectively verifiable standards. Some of you really seem to enjoy this, and basque in the glow of your certainty. Why not just explore the different salt and enjoy it rather than leveling it?

[christopher3393]

OK, that was a rant and I can't edit it. No need to reply, I'm out of this one.

[esldude]

Whoops, looks like I just stepped in another pile of reductionism. Are you guys everywhere on this site? No difference in salt, cola,dacs, amps, cables. People like me are such fools. Do you really enjoy pounding your point home over and over and over? Why don't you create the universal affordable sensible testable system that we can all abide by and hear the same way unless our ears are faulty. Then come up with ear correction. And our rooms are faulty. Let's standardize them to the best objectively verifiable standards. Some of you really seem to enjoy this, and basque in the glow of your certainty. Why not just explore the different salt and enjoy it rather than leveling it?

 

 

OK, that was a rant and I can't edit it. No need to reply, I'm out of this one.

 

Request rejected.

 

 

There are many possible retorts to your rant. I think this one will do.

 

It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.

Carl Sagan

 

The why do we care question (implicit in your rant):

 

We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.

Carl Sagan

 

Not necessarily an idea that audio will blow up in our faces. Just a matter of how the world is viewed can have consequences. Even if the consequences aren't dangerous that frame of mind being habit can be.

[gmgraves]

Sea salt is obtained directly through the evaporation of seawater. It is usually not processed, or undergoes minimal processing, and therefore retains trace levels of minerals like magnesium, potassium, calcium and other nutrients.

 

Table salt, on the other hand, is mined from salt deposits and then processed to give it a fine texture so it’s easier to mix and use in recipes. Processing strips table salt of any minerals it may have contained, and additives are also usually incorporated to prevent clumping or caking.

 

So they aren't the same, but do they really taste different?

 

Some testing indicates on foods where salt is sprinkled they do blind test differently. But it was found that is due to the different flake size of the salt crystals. Make the size of salt flakes the same, and no difference. In cooking where salt is cooked in where it will be dissolved no difference found.

 

A comment in one test is one that applies elsewhere:

 

Why did Pepsi's taste test results from their Pepsi challenge never translate into more sales? Because people never drink cola blind. They see the label.

 

People have been trying to tell me that Coke and Pepsi taste the "same" for more than 50 years. I've participated in blind tests of Coke, Pepsi, and RC more times than I care to think about. Nobody has ever fooled me. To me Coke and Pepsi are miles apart and I don't like Pepsi. It has a salty aftertaste that Coke doesn't have and it gives Pepsi away every time. I don't think a thirst-quenching drink should leave a salty taste in one's mouth. Seems elementary purpose defeating to me... but, hey, there's no accounting for taste.

[Don Hills]

... I don't think a thirst-quenching drink should leave a salty taste in one's mouth. Seems elementary purpose defeating to me...

 

You haven't thought it through, George. Why do bars provide bowls of salty snacks?

[Audio_ELF]

You haven't thought it through, George. Why do bars provide bowls of salty snacks?

Because a salty taste encourages you to drink more...

 

Well at least if it's a salty taste from rock salt; a salty taste from sea salt is much different :-)

 

On the sea salt vs rock salt there are molecular differences due to impurities which affect the taste.

 

Eloise

 

PS Pepsi vs Coke I can blind taste as sometimes you ask for "a Coke" and get given Pepsi and I can tell...

[mayhem13]

Whoops, looks like I just stepped in another pile of reductionism. Are you guys everywhere on this site? No difference in salt, cola,dacs, amps, cables. People like me are such fools. Do you really enjoy pounding your point home over and over and over? Why don't you create the universal affordable sensible testable system that we can all abide by and hear the same way unless our ears are faulty. Then come up with ear correction. And our rooms are faulty. Let's standardize them to the best objectively verifiable standards. Some of you really seem to enjoy this, and basque in the glow of your certainty. Why not just explore the different salt and enjoy it rather than leveling it?

 

There's many ways a person can stand out or be perceived as 'unique' amongst peers. Sadly, you're going about it the wrong way. Try something else.

[Teresa]

Whoops, looks like I just stepped in another pile of reductionism. Are you guys everywhere on this site? No difference in salt, cola,dacs, amps, cables. People like me are such fools. Do you really enjoy pounding your point home over and over and over? Why don't you create the universal affordable sensible testable system that we can all abide by and hear the same way unless our ears are faulty. Then come up with ear correction. And our rooms are faulty. Let's standardize them to the best objectively verifiable standards. Some of you really seem to enjoy this, and basque in the glow of your certainty. Why not just explore the different salt and enjoy it rather than leveling it?

 

I wasn't going to respond but after the negative response to your great post by some objectivists I feel I must take the time to say BRAVO, WAY TO GO, GREAT POST!

 

Yes, the reductionists are everywhere and it is a real problem at Computer Audiophile.

 

Actually the objectivist's head guru, the late Julian Hirsch with his infamous DBT's pretty much proved that every electronic device except speakers sound statistically the same and Mr. Hirsch advised purchasing stereo equipment based not on sound quality but on features.

 

After Julian Hirsch's death objectivists carried on proving that MP3s sound statistically the same as CDs and CDs sound statistically the same as high resolution digital, and pretty much everything else they could touch in their quest to destroy audiophiles and high-end audio and take us to the mediocrity of the lowest common denominator of everything sounding the same. It is ALL at steaming pile of crap and stinks to high heaven as does their blind devotion to science and their complete rejection of what they hear with their own f**king ears. It is the saddest thing I have ever witnessed on the internet.

 

Objectivist = My audio system is the best sounding and I can prove it with DBTs since everything statistically sounds the same. Never mind that their public ABX DBTs are not conducted in the same manner as how normal people listen to music for pleasure, they still cling to the null results anyway.

 

Subjectivist = My audio system while not the best is the best sounding for the money I was willing to invest using the best tools available to me, my ears.

 

OK, that was a rant and I can't edit it. No need to reply, I'm out of this one.

 

Don't back down, it sounds like you have chosen wisely to be a subjectivist. Stand proud.

 

Esldude's retorts to your rant and quotes from Carl Sagan fall flat and don't diminish your post in the least little bit.

 

Don't listen to Mayhem13 who really is unique in a bad way, he's the one going about everything the wrong way and Mayhem13 should take his own advise and try something else.

 

I am trying very hard not to post because of my ill health and if Esldude and Mayhem13 hadn't responded negatively to your very righteous indignation I would have not posted but I feel it is my duty as I love music and am a 100% pure subjectivist until the day I die and even to whatever is beyond death!

[sbgk]

Whoops, looks like I just stepped in another pile of reductionism. Are you guys everywhere on this site? No difference in salt, cola,dacs, amps, cables. People like me are such fools. Do you really enjoy pounding your point home over and over and over? Why don't you create the universal affordable sensible testable system that we can all abide by and hear the same way unless our ears are faulty. Then come up with ear correction. And our rooms are faulty. Let's standardize them to the best objectively verifiable standards. Some of you really seem to enjoy this, and basque in the glow of your certainty. Why not just explore the different salt and enjoy it rather than leveling it?

 

If you can hear differences then that's all that matters, no need to try and convince keyboard warriors who are just trying to wind you up. Be thankful you're motivations aren't the same.

[accwai]

[...] no need to try and convince keyboard warriors who are just trying to wind you up. [...]

 

One thing I've learned about practicing on a musical instrument is that if you're playing the same thing, making the same mistakes at all the same places etc day after day, it's a warning sign that you're going at it the wrong way. Keep doing it the same way would be a total waste of time. Find something else more enjoyable to do. Unless you enjoy hitting your head against a brick wall, which some do I suppose.

 

Oh, and this goes for both side. I'm neither subjectivist nor objectivist. But sometimes even stand on the sideline seems awfully tiring...

[REShaman]

If you can hear differences then that's all that matters, no need to try and convince keyboard warriors who are just trying to wind you up. Be thankful you're motivations aren't the same.

 

Amen. ?

 

Enjoy the music,

Richard

[Paul R]

Amazing how different subjects can get all mingled together here.

 

As a reefkeeper, I know for certain tha the composition of the different parts of the ocean are very different, as is the life that lives in them. It is certainly not unusual that salt from a few million years ago tastes somewhat different than salt from an ocean today. And of course, there is is a lot of processing done to Morton's that isn't done to natal sea salt.

 

My usually judge on the different salts is that if they look and smell different, then is not unexpected they might taste different. It is like people thinking that water all tastes the same. (Rr in your case, Pepsi tastes the same as Coca Cola... )

 

-Paul

 

 

One thing I've learned about practicing on a musical instrument is that if you're playing the same thing, making the same mistakes at all the same places etc day after day, it's a warning sign that you're going at it the wrong way. Keep doing it the same way would be a total waste of time. Find something else more enjoyable to do. Unless you enjoy hitting your head against a brick wall, which some do I suppose.

 

Oh, and this goes for both side. I'm neither subjectivist nor objectivist. But sometimes even stand on the sideline seems awfully tiring...

[gmgraves]

I wasn't going to respond but after the negative response to your great post by some objectivists I feel I must take the time to say BRAVO, WAY TO GO, GREAT POST!

 

Yes, the reductionists are everywhere and it is a real problem at Computer Audiophile.

 

Actually the objectivist's head guru, the late Julian Hirsch with his infamous DBT's pretty much proved that every electronic device except speakers sound statistically the same and Mr. Hirsch advised purchasing stereo equipment based not on sound quality but on features.

 

After Julian Hirsch's death objectivists carried on proving that MP3s sound statistically the same as CDs and CDs sound statistically the same as high resolution digital, and pretty much everything else they could touch in their quest to destroy audiophiles and high-end audio and take us to the mediocrity of the lowest common denominator of everything sounding the same. It is ALL at steaming pile of crap and stinks to high heaven as does their blind devotion to science and their complete rejection of what they hear with their own f**king ears. It is the saddest thing I have ever witnessed on the internet.

 

Objectivist = My audio system is the best sounding and I can prove it with DBTs since everything statistically sounds the same. Never mind that their public ABX DBTs are not conducted in the same manner as how normal people listen to music for pleasure, they still cling to the null results anyway.

 

Subjectivist = My audio system while not the best is the best sounding for the money I was willing to invest using the best tools available to me, my ears.

 

 

 

Don't back down, it sounds like you have chosen wisely to be a subjectivist. Stand proud.

 

Esldude's retorts to your rant and quotes from Carl Sagan fall flat and don't diminish your post in the least little bit.

 

Don't listen to Mayhem13 who really is unique in a bad way, he's the one going about everything the wrong way and Mayhem13 should take his own advise and try something else.

 

I am trying very hard not to post because of my ill health and if Esldude and Mayhem13 hadn't responded negatively to your very righteous indignation I would have not posted but I feel it is my duty as I love music and am a 100% pure subjectivist until the day I die and even to whatever is beyond death!

 

OK, I don't have much to complain about wrt the above post. But I don't remember Julian Hirsch ever doing a DBT. His reviews were all based on the standard procedure of the day: Show pictures of the product, explain the controls on the front panel, and the I/O on the back. Then measure the usual suspects: frequency response, THD, IM, S/N ratio, power output (if applicable), and any specs unique to that piece of gear (like usable sensitivity in FM tuners). These measurements were always compared to the manufacturer's specs and any small differences noted (if the unit consistently fell short of the manufacturer's specs, the review simply wasn't published). If all went well with the testing, Julian would sum-up the review by quoting his mantra: "Like all modern (amplifiers, preamps, tuners, phono cartridges, turntables, tape decks, CD players, speakers, etc -insert which ever one applies), the Amalgamated Widgets XP-13 has no sound of it's own, and will make a worth addition to anyone's stereo system..." IOW, "Of all the components, that I have ever tested, this was one of them."

 

One needs to keep in mind that the so-called mainstream audio press, back in the day, was not aimed at the consumer. It existed, primarily, as a pipeline for the PR departments of audio manufacturers to the consumer. These magazines were all about new product announcements and letting the consumer know what's available. NOT, necessarily, what's good (yes, we have no opinion). Job one was never to be too critical of any advertiser's products (lest the magazine lose that advertiser). That's the reason why High-Fidelity, Stereo Review, and to some extent, Audio, never published anything but good reviews. I once asked Julian Hirsch about this policy, and how it could possibly benefit the reader. He surprised me by having a reasonable sounding answer. To whit: "If you make your new equipment selections only from that list of equipment reviewed in Stereo Review, you will always get good value for the money you spend." "Fine," said I, "but what about good equipment that you never review?" "There are two possibilities there," he retorted. "Either we were not able to source a review sample, or the review sample didn't meet it's specs or was, in some way, defective, and the review wasn't printed. Either way, the equipment that we did review and publish covers all equipment types and price points, and you're bound to find something in that group of fine products that meets your needs."

 

Gordon Holt started Stereophile because he believed that a magazine about the audio hobby should benefit the hobbyist, not the manufacturer/advertiser. He felt that if a piece of gear was lousy, and represented poor value to the hobbyist, the magazine should say so in no uncertain terms. Of course, he also believed that while meeting advertised specs exhibited good engineering and quality control in a component, it really said nothing about how said component actually performed playing music (I.E. How it sounded), and that Julian Hirsch and his ilk were wrong when they said that everything sounded the same, and that "sameness" was, of course, always perfect to the Stereo Reviews of the world..

[Allan F]

OK, I don't have much to complain about wrt the above post. But I don't remember Julian Hirsch ever doing a DBT.

 

As I recall an article of his in Stereo Review many years ago, he played a number of different amplifiers for a group of people and wrote that they could not tell one from another. He is also well known for stating - wrongly - that all amplifiers with similar specs sound the same. He also loved Bose 901 speakers.

[Teresa]

As I recall an article of his in Stereo Review many years ago, he played a number of different amplifiers for a group of people and wrote that they could not tell one from another. He is also well known for stating - wrongly - that all amplifiers with similar specs sound the same. He also loved Bose 901 speakers.

 

Are you referring to the infamous 1987 blind listening test conducted by Stereo Review that concluded that a pair of Mark Levinson monoblocks, an output-transformerless tubed amplifier, and a $220 Pioneer receiver were all sonically identical?

[Allan F]

Are you referring to the infamous 1987 blind listening test conducted by Stereo Review that concluded that a pair of Mark Levinson monoblocks, an output-transformerless tubed amplifier, and a $220 Pioneer receiver were all sonically identical?

 

I could be wrong but I thought he had written about amplifiers with similar specs sounding the same years before that. I often wondered if Julian Hirsch was tone deaf.

[4est]

Amen is right! In context, if I thought all DACs sounded the largely the same, or couldn't hear subtle changes, I would consider my stereo as finished and simply enjoy it. I certainly wouldn't waste my time attempting to sway others opinions and such in the name of "saving this hobby".

One thing I've learned about practicing on a musical instrument is that if you're playing the same thing, making the same mistakes at all the same places etc day after day, it's a warning sign that you're going at it the wrong way. Keep doing it the same way would be a total waste of time. Find something else more enjoyable to do. Unless you enjoy hitting your head against a brick wall, which some do I suppose.

 

Oh, and this goes for both side. I'm neither subjectivist nor objectivist. But sometimes even stand on the sideline seems awfully tiring...

[Paul R]

Hi Teresa- Julian was a fine gentleman, and would have driven most people here crazy with his point of view. But at the time remember, he was also a amvery good person to know. And I know personally that he did *not* sport a set of horns or cloven hoofs, and was rather pleased with the idea that people out there were using their ears as well as their brains.

 

Yes, he did like Bose 901s- as well, he liked AR9s better. Both were considered expensive speakers in the 70s and both did and still do sounded pretty good to me.

 

Not, in most respects, as good as a $600 set of Maggie MMGs, but then, not much does, to me.

 

Julian would have been utterly deighted with CA, and reveled in the discussions here. As well, he would have presented a force to be reckoned with to the real (but thankfully very few) scam artists in the field today.

 

Paul

 

 

 

Are you referring to the infamous 1987 blind listening test conducted by Stereo Review that concluded that a pair of Mark Levinson monoblocks, an output-transformerless tubed amplifier, and a $220 Pioneer receiver were all sonically identical?

[paul1970]

Amen is right! In context, if I thought all DACs sounded the largely the same, or couldn't hear subtle changes, I would consider my stereo as finished and simply enjoy it. I certainly wouldn't waste my time attempting to sway others opinions and such in the name of "saving this hobby".

 

But there are areas that can bring big improvements. There are areas that are worth the time, effort and expense, but I strongly believe DACs are the wrong place to be spending those resources. Thing is; there are big margins in selling DACs and those margins become astronomical for certain cables. Once you can convince people that you don't need to produce evidence that your product as any better than another ("just use your ears!") then chasing margins becomes the right business decision and genuinely improving sound reproduction in people's rooms is not.

[4est]

WTF? Then all of the speaker manufacturers would be making DACs. Frankly, I am tired of the "you should spend money elsewhere" lingo.

But there are areas that can bring big improvements. There are areas that are worth the time, effort and expense, but I strongly believe DACs are the wrong place to be spending those resources. Thing is; there are big margins in selling DACs and those margins become astronomical for certain cables. Once you can convince people that you don't need to produce evidence that your product as any better than another ("just use your ears!") then chasing margins becomes the right business decision and genuinely improving sound reproduction in people's rooms is not.

[Paul R]

Yep. I agree with you Forrest. Just to me, DACs make more difference than anything else save speaker cables and speakers, given everything else is the same and of a modest high quality.

 

-Paul

 

WTF? Then all of the speaker manufacturers would be making DACs. Frankly, I am tired of the "you should spend money elsewhere" lingo.

[paul1970]

WTF? Then all of the speaker manufacturers would be making DACs...

You missed the point, probably intentionally. The issue is not only DACs.

It goes without saying that you're entitled to spend your money where you want. My opinion bothers you: noted.

Anyway, I'm talking about the time, effort and expense of people who can actually improve audio reproduction i.e. engineers.

[REShaman]

You missed the point, probably intentionally. The issue is not only DACs.

It goes without saying that you're entitled to spend your money where you want. My opinion bothers you: noted.

Anyway, I'm talking about the time, effort and expense of people who can actually improve audio reproduction i.e. engineers.

 

paul1970,

 

Is it possible that the point you were making was obscured by what you actually wrote? The meaning of your communication is the response you get. The antidote is to take notice that perhaps your point wasn't missed, perhaps, you wrote in an ambiguous way. I, too, did not get your point. Attributing a negative intention to a member's response as motive for responding to your post is not fair comment. Best to consider the responses of others who did not get your point either. I am writing this post to you with the intention of making my perspective clear and that has nothing to do with dismissing you. If my comments are not helpful so be it.

 

Enjoy the music,

Richard

[4est]

Intentionally? Huh? What type of engineering are you thinking of then?

You missed the point, probably intentionally. The issue is not only DACs.

It goes without saying that you're entitled to spend your money where you want. My opinion bothers you: noted.

Anyway, I'm talking about the time, effort and expense of people who can actually improve audio reproduction i.e. engineers.