Precisision and linearity can be measured scientifically and
objectively. The
remainder are in the ear and brain of the listener.

So? The purpose of the DAC is to listen to it.

Andy Evans wrote:


Eeyore wrote
!
Precisision and linearity can be measured scientifically and
objectively. The remainder are in the ear and brain of the listener.

So? The purpose of the DAC is to listen to it.

Listening will only tell you what *you* think of it, i.e. subjective evaluation.
That is no reliable measure of 'goodness' whatever as easily can be seen from
those who think SET tube amps are great despite shocking failings wrt precision
and linearity.

Graham

please learn to quote properly btw

On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 11:08:40 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:

So? The purpose of the DAC is to listen to it.

Listening will only tell you what *you* think of it, i.e. subjective evaluation.
That is no reliable measure of 'goodness' whatever as easily can be seen from
those who think SET tube amps are great despite shocking failings wrt precision
and linearity.

Don't we know how to make a transparent DAC yet?

Laurence Payne wrote:

On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 11:08:40 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:

So? The purpose of the DAC is to listen to it.

Listening will only tell you what *you* think of it, i.e. subjective evaluation.
That is no reliable measure of 'goodness' whatever as easily can be seen from
those who think SET tube amps are great despite shocking failings wrt precision
and linearity.

Don't we know how to make a transparent DAC yet?

We know how to make ones that measure so well that they must surely be sonically
blameless yet certain ppl insist they differ still.

Some ppl even say they're better when a toob is used after the DAC !

Graham

On 2006-09-09, Eeyore wrote:
Laurence Payne wrote:
Don't we know how to make a transparent DAC yet?

We know how to make ones that measure so well that they must surely be sonically
blameless yet certain ppl insist they differ still.

Some ppl even say they're better when a toob is used after the DAC !

This configuration always fascinates me. If the DAC isn't (sufficiently)
transparent then putting a valve (tube) in series with it cannot make the
combination transparent. Yet sometimes I see the T word used to describe
"better" in this context.

(Note, before the deluge starts, that I am not commenting on anyone's
sonic taste. Merely commenting on the words sometimes used to describe
that taste.)

--
John Phillips

John Phillips wrote:

On 2006-09-09, Eeyore wrote:
Laurence Payne wrote:
Don't we know how to make a transparent DAC yet?

We know how to make ones that measure so well that they must surely be sonically
blameless yet certain ppl insist they differ still.

Some ppl even say they're better when a toob is used after the DAC !

This configuration always fascinates me. If the DAC isn't (sufficiently)
transparent then putting a valve (tube) in series with it cannot make the
combination transparent.

Sssshhhh ! Don't tell anyone ! No amount of science was involved in the observation.


Yet sometimes I see the T word used to describe
"better" in this context.

Yes.


(Note, before the deluge starts, that I am not commenting on anyone's
sonic taste. Merely commenting on the words sometimes used to describe
that taste.)

I've spent some time in rec.audio.tubes to try and establish what this is all about.
It's quite clear that the 'toobies' believe that added colouration from vacuum tubes
equals 'higher fidelity' ( because they like the sound ).

What they are confusing this with is their preference for an intentionally flawed but
entirely pleasnt and relatively benign form of distortion. Nothing wrong with their
listening preference but the presentation of this as inherently superior is utterly
bogus.

Graham

What they are confusing this with is their preference for an
intentionally flawed but
entirely pleasnt and relatively benign form of distortion. Nothing
wrong with their
listening preference but the presentation of this as inherently
superior is utterly
bogus.

The idea that valves are simply "added distortion" and nothing else
could only be made by somebody with a) very little knowledge of modern
valve circuits and how they sound or b) somebody with cloth ears.

I've spent some time in rec.audio.tubes to try and establish what this
is all about.

You could not have chosen a worse place - you will learn absolutely
nothing from that newsgroup. Read the Tube DIY forum on
www.audioasylum.com and you will find posts by the leading tube
designers. Try it out for a month or so. You will see a universe of
difference in the quality of engineering, debate, knowledge and
information. Plus it's leading edge - people experimenting with ideas.

"Eeyore" wrote


I've spent some time in rec.audio.tubes to try and establish what this is
all about.
It's quite clear that the 'toobies' believe that added colouration from
vacuum tubes
equals 'higher fidelity' ( because they like the sound ).


Fidelity? What's that? Do you somehow manage to *not* use speakers...??

I think you're confusing valvie's claims of greater realism and naturalness
with valves with so-called *measured* accuracy....???


What they are confusing this with is their preference for an intentionally
flawed but
entirely pleasnt and relatively benign form of distortion. Nothing wrong
with their
listening preference but the presentation of this as inherently superior
is utterly
bogus.


Another one who expects people to agree their preference is inherently
*inferior*....???

Have this one on me - a valve amp (SET in paticular) is *****e* for playing
MP3s when you're out jogging......

If the DAC isn't (sufficiently) transparent then putting a valve (tube)
in series with it cannot make the combination transparent. Yet
sometimes I see the T word used to describe
"better" in this context.

Isn't a DAC by definition something with an analogue output stage? So
something must be on the end of it, whether ss circuit,
transformer,capacitor or tube stage. The advantage of a tube stage is
that the output with DC on it can be fed directly into the grid of the
tube, and the DC included in the biasing. You can't talk about a DAC as
if there's "nothing" on the end of it.