lightminer

Right, in terms of building a connection between the two sides this is a friend, a Physicist/Cosmologist explaining one way of looking at it (and this can be streamed trough your systems ). Note I love Hitchens as well and all kinds of ways of looking at things.

Jud, I'd love to talk about this more but alas I feel this isn't the appropriate place. Extremely briefly, what if both could exist? I work in science as do many of my friends and for a lot of us there is no conflict. The issue arises when religion attached to a non-metaphorical version of the bible (Oh, my God, the sun has sunspots, that means everything we believe is bogus!!!! Aaaaggghhhhhh!!!!! I'm mellllltttttiiiinnnngggggggg!!!!!!! Someone, quick, throw Galileo in hell before anyone reads his papers!!!! Hurry!!!!!) and from Galileo and Darwin (Darwin himself when he wrote Origin also saw no conflict) forward there became this big battle that was really more between certain Christian Churches and science. Buddhists and Hindus largely (there are many sects, however, so can't be 100% blanket about it) have no problem with science, nor Taoists, etc. Baha'is believe very firmly in both working together. The non-metaphorical Bible thing created a unique conversation that swept all of these things into that one apparent dichotomy and now dominates these discussions whereas for me the two completely go hand in hand. Happy to discuss further on PM. I've probably already gone too far and some large group will be already be annoyed at my post. But what I most strongly want to suggest is that there is no necessary conflict between spirituality and science in my world view.

Although I have to add that the best scientists I've known, atheist or other, all are acutely aware of the evolutionary nature of science. I realize I might ruffle some feathers here, but in my opinion it is only the weaker scientists or science enthusiasts, who think that science at any particular year month and day (hour?) has some sort of final say on reality. It changes too much, it evolves. In many cases the change may be slight and represent a convergence towards a single truth, but then we also have scientific revolutions that throw things very strongly assumed to be wrong or a subset of a larger equation. Basically there is a fundamental openness as to actual reality vs the comprehended and analyzed reality. Remember that we are the history of those that will be here in 100, 200 years.

I'm not making a value judgment of the different philosophies, but am saying that it *may* influence how we look at subjectivist vs measurementist approaches to audio. I could be wrong, it is a theory.

As to your last comment ("I thought the idea was to share ideas") this is actually quite a timely and imporant comment. I think the highest challenge to the whole human race right now, particularly in light of recent events here in the US, is to find a way to have meaningful dialogue when we disagree. To establish a level of unity as co-human beings on a small planet all in pursuit of truth even while we may have different axioms, logic and conclusions. Whether anyone likes the other things he has said or done, Van Jones recently did a series of three interviews that I thought were pretty powerful on this topic: The Messy Truth - Van Jones I think this is very well done - in order to advance as a society we've got to be able to have different ideas but still get along and interact so that everyone wins and we understand eachother, and in some small cases perhaps learn from eachother . Edit: If I had more time, in the spirit of those videos where they redo the dialogue from that WWII movie where Hitler is really mad and have him talk about some other issue, I'd like to dub over the young kid who is so angry and have the focus of his anger be Bose or Bang and Olufsen or similar, but leave as much of the dialogue as it is. That could be very funny.

Actually, I'd like to suggest as the thread originator that in this case, the more humor the better. Go for it. We need it these days... I was quite proud of my early 'see-through output section' early on and haven't been able to get back to that level since. And the 'he was right, or not right' one was perhaps pretty good as well (in response to the literary vs philosophical meaning of tautology). Ironically I've studied Alan Watts quite a bit and rivers as part of Environmental Engineering (contaminant fate and transport, etc., all kinds of stuff, rivers, groundwater as well, etc.). I'll say that I do think Alan Watts was in touch with something that not everyone is. Actually - that makes me think of something else. I wonder if the measurement-only people tend towards atheism? I wonder if some people (i.e., Alan Watts, myself, others) like and appreciate the unknown and awe and different aspects of life, i.e., spirituality (not religion, that is a whole different thing which can either be spiritual in some cases or not in other cases) and what we are seeing here has more to do with people's wider belief system manifesting in a particular field. And I do mean atheism, not agnosticism where that sense of wonder is still there but just less defined? I think some people don't believe in anything unless it can be weighed, or given a l/w/h, db level, etc.

Yes, someone beating it was elsewhere, all I remember was that it was choral music. We're going back in time quite a bit there. Right - he wasn't suggesting you don't need amps to match speakers, just interesting to note that it can be expensive to properly drive low efficiency speakers and that right there creates a lot of expense, not getting into high-fi voodoo. Many took his claim to mean that a 1k or 500 amp should be fine for anyone, but the trick was that it could be quite expensive just to meet the basic requirements.

In all honesty, if we could set up a good Richard Clark style test, we could start with a solid good lower priced DAC and see if with EQ people could ABX a 1.5k or so DAC with a 10k DAC. There may be something interesting there. Should be a new thread, but I'd participate. Note I don't think ABX is 'everything' but it at least gives a baseline for how large differences are. I agree some very resolving DAC's can be harsh owner time (listening fatigue).

Els!!! So this whole time you tricked us and used Trump Twitter-style tactics in a reverse spin to get us all! Brilliant play, my friend, brilliant. Very meta .

From our own Chris C.'s review of the Schiit (3 separated power supplies, no less, btw) "I've enjoyed the Yggdrasil so much since I took delivery of the unit that I can say it's unequivocally one of the best DACs at reproducing acoustic music I've ever heard. Of course this DAC is fabulous at amplified / electric music as well, but there is something about its ability to convey realism when reproducing acoustic instruments that is remarkably alluring. In my experience, sound quality of this caliber comes at a price that most of us simply can't afford. We read the reviews of ultra high-end products as aspirational buyers who may one day get lucky enough to find a gem on the used market for well below the original price. Many audio enthusiasts know what I'm about to say, but those who are unfamiliar with the Yggdrasil, and Schiit Audio in general, should stop skimming this review and pay close attention. The aforementioned sound quality of the Yggdrasil, Schiit Audio's top-of-the-line digital to analog converter, can be had for $2,299 USD. That's a new-in-box component with a fifteen day return policy and a five year warranty, for less than the cost of sales tax on many items in this wonderful yet sometimes crazy world of high end audio. Come along as I share my extraordinary experience with the Schiit Audio Yggdrasil digital to analog converter." So he is overtly saying that for 2.2k here you can 'play with the big boys'. So Chris C., who is a reviewer, is saying the differences get small from here. But you have to get somewhere like this to start. I personally am still enamored by DSD (let's not get into that on top of everything else, and yes, I did try to be different, but just couldn't do it...) otherwise I would unquestionably get this device. I agree 100% with the following: spend most of you money on the speakers, the differences on the rest are much smaller between components. In fact I recently set someone up with a pair of 3.5k Marc and Daniel speaker paired with a NuForce $500 combo thingy that is like the 390dd in topology (amp and DAC at same time). They live in an apartment and can't ever play loud. It sounds awesome! Later they can replace the whole NuForce device entirely and get more expensive stuff, but they have really solid great speakers for the long haul for a close-up environment.

Well, but that is the whole point. I consider the position extreme and have described it as bizarre, which I will stick with. As stated, even at the 800-1200 level I think we can be somewhere where most DACs from there are 2% or 5% better (sticking with your concept that romantic colorations are to be ignored for now), but not at 500. And certainly if we raise just a bit more, to 2k or so then there are more than one DAC where many many people say there are only a few percents left to be had. The Schiit Yggy (no DSD) is one and there are a few others. Again, one thing I know people do in higher end DACs is to chase down sources of noise of various types, and that simply can't be done at 500. Just to put it to bed once and for all I'd really like ABX 10 times in a blind environment the Emotiva with anything else, let alone the Berkeley reference 2. It may take me a month, but I'll figure out how to do it just to put this to bed. Now, if you and others want to say that around 1200 or something that there are only a few percent left and that the manu's and reviewers and online commentators have everyone fooled and that everyone is 90% of the time talking about pure nonsense from there, well you might have something there. Is there a magnification of minute or imagined differences, that is great I'm all for it and agree and that is very interesting. But for goodness sakes, at the least start with Aries Mini (w/ps), or Concero HD as a base (800-ish) and I think even there there is still low hanging fruit to things like Schiit Gungnir multibit and one or two others at the 1200 level. Maybe I or someone more knowledgeable can make a short list of great DACs in the 800-1500 level we could consider a reference, and then see how much better you get to, or how strong differences are into the 6 and 10k level, and then as you say into the 50k and 150k level. And at the most we could convince some folks here to see if they can do 10 ABXs from a 1.5 or 2k DAC to a 10k DAC. Can we do as the amp-comparo guy does and eq-out some differences, or is that process lowering fidelity so then they do sound the same? What is highest quality EQ?

There it is... 8 years ago. https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/the-richard-clark-quot-all-amps-sounds-the-same-quot-test http://www.tom-morrow-land.com/tests/ampchall/index.htm

Re: this comment being what you cited in the other thread: "I don’t have much to say about the sonic qualities of Benchmark’s new AHB2 power amplifier because there isn’t that much to say. Used within its limitations and for its intended purposes it is in any practical sense perfect. I know this is not the sort of thing we’re supposed to say about products, but it has been evident for a very long time now that solid-state electronics, particularly linestage preamplifiers and power amplifiers, have reached a point where they are effectively a solved problem such that it is exceeding difficult to tell one from another even in the most exacting A/B comparisons. Ferretting out differences typically involves zeroing in on a very specific and limited characteristic or set of characteristics with such concentration as to leave one tired, uncertain, or both: in other words, an activity that is the very antithesis of what is involved in listening seriously, even critically—to say nothing of pleasurably—to music. [i must point out that this view is not shared by the TAS editorial staff. —RH]" Ironically, I started a thread many years ago on Audiogon about precisely this same thing. There was a guy who had a $10k dollar test where if you could tell the difference between any two amps he would give you 10k and for many years no one ever could. The only other twist is: 1) they had to operate within their rated specs, and 2) he would have an eq on on or the other, so that he could eq away extra bass, extra mids, etc. Sounds very fair to me. I have magnepan 3.6s, and you can dig that thread out over there, but suffice it to say it came to a similar conclusion for me: Yes, it may be true particularly given #1. However, if you have Maggie 3.6s, (can't remember, 4 ohms and 87 db?) and you want complex music to be able to be really loud, then that right there puts the price way up. So sometimes these things can be true, but basically not apply. Btw, someone did eventually beat his test, and interestingly enough it was on mostly choral music, and it was found afterwards that choral music shows some differences more than other music.

Just out of curiosity, is there anyone else who believes that the Emotiva and Berkeley Reference 2 are indistinguishable? I want to understand the dynamics of the conversation. As to listening to the files, I think there is a problem with the test. You are assuming that the ADC is sufficiently good to pick up on all of the differences. That said, I'm happy to do it. But I can't right now, just spent 45 min trying. I just moved, and my NAS is out of commission, my computer is farther than 15 feet away from DAC right now (longest USB is 15 feet) and I found a USB key but it was bad. I can hear anything on Tidal, but not my local stuff yet, just not set up quite yet. I will listen to the files, but a better test is several ABX's between Emotiva and Berk Ref 2. I may know someone where I can do that.

Happy to listen to tracks. My pre is being upgraded, so I don't have my best sound for 2 more weeks, but can do it now or then, or both.