If most DACs are already at this level of transparency already achieve this, how would a mega dollar DAC be more higher fidelity? How is the subject of neuroscience even relevant when it relates to fidelity to the original source? Once upon a time I did dapple in high end DACs and sure, many of them did sound different to a generic Wolfson or Burr Brown implementation (when it could be demonstrated under a DBX not to be placebo) but is that due to higher fidelity or a choice by the manufacturer to put a euphonic signature sound above fidelity? Is it being suggested that neuroscience suggests the human brain process the euphony in a way that is better than true high fidelity? If so that raises two issues - as euphony is subjective to an individual how do we know what is the best euphony for human brains? More fundamentally, if euphony is that important and subjectively ubiquitous across individuals why wouldn't the recording be mixed and mastered that way while maintaining transparent high fidelity in the playback chain, including transparent, low cost commoditised DACs? Given that, the DAC that outputs a signal that is perfect, or as perfect as can be within the domain of human hearing capability, must by definition be at the highest level of fidelity. The out electrical signal can be compared to an original benchmark, say the original signal that went into the ADC earlier in a production chain. At the end of the day a DAC processes an electrical signal and outputs an electrical signal. Click to expand.This is the part I don't understand about DACs or your rebuttal of Gregorio.
0 kommentar(er)
