How can someone provide objective evidence that the higher frequency's of a certain DAC are unpleasant to his ears?
Further off-topic discussion on the matter will be binned.
RMAA's frequency response graph can give you some insight into what you're hearing, and qualifies (I think?) as "objective evidence".high frequency roll-off (likely inaudible though).
The Fiio E17 DAC does as far as my ears can tell a much better job at converting digital signals into analog output than the Asus Xonar DX in my PC does. In the low frequency range the Xonar lacks power and presence, and on the other end of the spectrum the Xonar offers too much, the high frequency's get way to high and rather unpleasant and tiring, at least for my ears.
It does not qualify. TOS #8 is quite specific about what qualifies.
Quote from: greynol on 25 August, 2012, 01:00:35 PMIt does not qualify. TOS #8 is quite specific about what qualifies.My bad. I didn't remember HA was so ABX centric that such tests were the ONLY acceptable evidence. Graphs are objective evidence of a difference, just not of an audible one indeed.Blah, bin this. I'm used to it by now ;-)
Well I did my best to produce "objective evidence" even thought I still believe that such can not exist where subjective areas are concerned.
the E17 for some reason does not play 44100KHz native and upsamples 44100KHz input to 48000KHz
even thought I still believe that such can not exist where subjective areas are concerned.