Hi End Converter Shootout - Blind Test

[Spartacus]

Originally Posted by Aivaras

Converter A:

Song 2: More rounded, duller highs, worse transient response at both ends of the spectrum.

Converter C:

Song 2: A little less resolved on all counts: stereophony, transient response, spectral detail, yet quite similar to the sample track.

Converter D:

Song 2: Broader, better transients, crispier highs, overall very nice, lacks some of the sub-lows that are present in the kick of the sample track.

Song 3: Better transients (notice the shakers during the verse), nice overall spectral balance, wider stereo field.

Converter F:

Song 1: The spectral balance is very close to the original with a little more weight in the low-mids; yet somewhat loosened transients (pay heed to the guitar strats).

Song 3: This time less of a difference, still better transients (pay heed to the shakers during the verse, and the tambourine during the chorus, here you can hear the actual attacks whereas in the sample track the tamburine's initial snap is masked by the snare’s attack and only the second part of its dynamic envelope - the rattle and the reverb - can be heard more distinctly.

Converter G:

Song 1: Exquisite, euphonic, fuller than the sample track, stereophonic stage, transients, spectral balance - everything in right measure and proportion.

Song 2: Once more beautiful performance, excellent transients, the kick is very focused, contoured, the highs more resolved, overall better sounding than the sample track.

Song 3: The differences are less pronounced, better transients, the middle band has more instrumental separation, the snare has better attacks, sounds snappier.

Converter H:

Song 2: Phasier, the transients quite smeared, the attack of the kick loses its focus and spectral acuteness.

Converter I:

Song 3: A winner in the genre of rock, best instrumental separation, clearest highs, excellent transient response.

Could you explain me what you call "transient" ?
I'm curious because it seems you're not really refering to the "transient state" I learned in physics...
And how a converter could compress transient (you talk about attack, smearing...as if we were dealing with compressors) without affecting the rest of the signal ?

[dakiniz]

I prefer
G for smooth.
I for clearity.

Great shootout! thx!

[Mark D.]

[Aivaras]

Originally Posted by Spartacus

Could you explain me what you call "transient" ?
I'm curious because it seems you're not really refering to the "transient state" I learned in physics...

I make use of the word “transient” to describe the sound of those instruments that are characterized by an abrupt attack and a relatively short decay such as most percussive sounds. I am afraid it has very little in common with the terminology of physics. In music, transient sounds are usually distinguished from sustained ones.

Originally Posted by Spartacus

Could you explain me what you call "transient" ?
I'm curious because it seems you're not really refering to the "transient state" I learned in physics...
And how a converter could compress transient (you talk about attack, smearing...as if we were dealing with compressors) without affecting the rest of the signal ?

I don’t remember using the word “compress”. Attack is just the initial phase of the dynamic envelope of a sound, the way the sound develops in the first, say, 1-to-50 milliseconds. It is a sonic property that exists prior to and independent of processing. A compressor may be used to manipulate the attack of a sound, but some kind of an attack should have been there to begin with. Equalizers can affect transients, too, albeit in their own particular way. So, too, converters.

By “smearing” I didn't mean “compressing”. I simply wanted to convey the thought that the attacks of some instruments in the provided sample tracks sounded different when reproduced by different converters. Sometimes I perceived them to be sharp, concrete, very precise and focused in time, at other times somewhat blurred, washy, chorused, or simply, for the lack of a better word, “smeared”.

PS Regarding the ability of converters to compress signals, well, they are not intended to, but sometimes they are reported to do so, even if very little, as longs as they employ discrete analog parts with all kinds of tolerances and intolerances. Figure that one! Physics with its attraction and electromechanics with its tolerance or a lack thereof.

[Spartacus]

Originally Posted by Aivaras

I don’t remember using the word “compress”. Attack is just the initial phase of the dynamic envelope of a sound, the way the sound develops in the first, say, 1-to-50 milliseconds.

By “smearing” I didn't mean “compressing”. I simply wanted to convey the thought that the attacks of some instruments in the provided sample tracks sounded different when reproduced by different converters. Sometimes I perceived them to be sharp, concrete, very precise and focused in time, at other times somewhat blurred, washy, chorused, or simply, for the lack of a better word, “smeared”.

1 to 50ms corresponds to frequencies from 1000 Hz to 20 Hz.
So if some converters have problems to deal with such attack times, they should have problems to deal also with these frequencies by "smearing" them.
Of course they don't, those "transients" are in fact quite slow compared to a steady state 20 kHz (let's say even a 10 kHz) frequency which will be captured quite well at 96 kHz sampling rate by any of the converters tested here as they are all up to 20 kHz bandwidth systems.

So why it should be more difficult for these converters to deal with slower slew rate than the ones they already deal with ?

Originally Posted by Spartacus

1 to 50ms corresponds to frequencies from 1000 Hz to 20 Hz.
So if some converters have problems to deal with such attack times, they should have problems to deal also with these frequencies by "smearing" them.
Of course they don't, those "transients" are in fact quite slow compared to a steady state 20 kHz (let's say even a 10 kHz) frequency which will be captured quite well at 96 kHz sampling rate by any of the converters tested here as they are all up to 20 kHz bandwidth systems.

So why it should be more difficult for these converters to deal with slower slew rate than the ones they already deal with ?

Not trying to encourage the craziness or anything, but converter smear is usually attributed to pre-ringing.

[Spartacus]

Originally Posted by bango9000

Not trying to encourage the craziness or anything, but converter smear is usually attributed to pre-ringing.

pre-ringing near Nyquist at 44,1 kHz assuming all converters do oversampling now, I'm not sure... and at a low freq from a kick drum transient ? and at 96 kHz ? No way.

I'm not sure anyway the "transients" Aivaras is talking about refer to pre-ringing...

[MattGray]

One thing to be mindful of when listening to these files is that its easy to fool your ears by listening to the production quality of each mix rather than listening for what the converter is changing. It's important to continually A/B against the original mix file & ignore any negative aspects of the original mix.

A very detailed converter will likely reveal more flaws with the mix than one that has more jitter or smearing. In these cases its possible to think a less detailed converter sounds better.

The better designs do have a superior transient response, tighter low end (often perceived as extending lower), more precise imaging & improved low level detail. Essentially the veil is lifted off many aspects of the true source (for better or worse). Of course to hear these things well you need a revealing monitoring DAC, great amp/s & full range detailed monitoring (speakers & acoustics). I've found the Duntechs excellent at revealing transient detail & they have a very precise image so I find the differences become more obvious to me listening to converters in this environment. Transient response does translate to any system though & I find that very desirable in a converter especially considering how many transients are lost in the pursuit of loud levels. Compression, clipping, limiting, saturation & further downstream processing from Mp3 compression & broadcast compound the issue further so if you can preserve the detail as much as possible before it gets turned into Mp3 or shoved through an Orban Optimod the better it's going to sound coming out the other end imo.

It would also be interesting to know whether a converter with an excellent clock may also correct some of the jitter issues of a digital source (mix). Is it possible that it may end up being tighter, clearer & less smeared than the original source after passing through the conversion process? I'm not suggesting if something was compressed or processed that it would undo some of those characteristics just suggesting that it may remove jitter from the signal which could possibly improve low level detail & smear from prior conversion somewhat. Anyone care to comment on the possibility that could occur?

So we've only had one brave person comment on all the files... any more?

[Shy]

Originally Posted by MattGray

It would also be interesting to know whether a converter with an excellent clock may also correct some of the jitter issues of a digital source (mix).

First of all, no clock can "correct jitter issues". Jitter that already exists can't be removed/corrected/bypassed. Secondly, there are no "jitter issues of a digital source" in the digital audio data domain. All the bits eventually get to where they need to go in exactly the intended order. If they don't, something is faulty in your setup.

Originally Posted by Spartacus

pre-ringing near Nyquist at 44,1 kHz assuming all converters do oversampling now, I'm not sure... and at a low freq from a kick drum transient ? and at 96 kHz ? No way.

I don't want to get into a dissertation off-topic in this thread, but pre-ringing [or ringing generally] in converters is not actually confined to Nyquist frequency or anything.

I should note, by the way, that kick drum thwack is not a "low frequency" sound.

Jitter is also sometimes described as a "smearing" effect.

Originally Posted by spartacus

I'm not sure anyway the "transients" Aivaras is talking about refer to pre-ringing...

Hard to say.

Originally Posted by MattGray

So we've only had one brave person comment on all the files... any more?

I will just say that I'm disappointed that no one has observed or reported any "tighter, more focused and defined, forward upper hi-mid detail".

Nowadays, I usually custom order all my converters with extra "tighter, more focused and defined forward, upper hi-mid detail".

Or, sometimes, with "a more realistic, 3-D soundstage".

Because I care.

[MattGray]

Originally Posted by bango9000

I will just say that I'm disappointed that no one has observed or reported any "tighter, more focused and defined, forward upper hi-mid detail".

Nowadays, I usually custom order all my converters with extra "tighter, more focused and defined forward, upper hi-mid detail".

Or, sometimes, with "a more realistic, 3-D soundstage".

Because I care.

what are you hearing in the converter files? how would you describe some of the differences?

Let's keep this thread on track people...

[dcollins]

Originally Posted by Shy

First of all, no clock can "correct jitter issues". Jitter that already exists can't be removed/corrected/bypassed. Secondly, there are no "jitter issues of a digital source" in the digital audio data domain. All the bits eventually get to where they need to go in exactly the intended order. If they don't, something is faulty in your setup.

J*tter at the actual point of conversion can never be removed, but transmission j*tter can be greatly attenuated, or even amplified.


DC

[dcollins]

Originally Posted by bango9000

I will just say that I'm disappointed that no one has observed or reported any "tighter, more focused and defined, forward upper hi-mid detail".

Nowadays, I usually custom order all my converters with extra "tighter, more focused and defined forward, upper hi-mid detail".

Or, sometimes, with "a more realistic, 3-D soundstage".

Because I care.

It's good to see someone going the extra mile for quality.

How much to get "palpable" in there as well?


DC

[Aivaras]

Originally Posted by Spartacus

1 to 50ms corresponds to frequencies from 1000 Hz to 20 Hz.
So if some converters have problems to deal with such attack times, they should have problems to deal also with these frequencies by "smearing" them.
Of course they don't, those "transients" are in fact quite slow compared to a steady state 20 kHz (let's say even a 10 kHz) frequency which will be captured quite well at 96 kHz sampling rate by any of the converters tested here as they are all up to 20 kHz bandwidth systems.

So why it should be more difficult for these converters to deal with slower slew rate than the ones they already deal with ?

Actually, I’m just reporting my subjective perceptions jotted down while listening to the files provided by the original poster.

And honestly, this is where I would like to stay, on the subjective listener’s terrain, without being lured into a conversation about sampling theory and the limits of its real-life implementations.

The human ear does a lot of things when listening to music. One of them is localizing instruments in time. There is a family of instruments that is especially demanding in this respect, namely, percussive instruments. Those are the instruments that need to be reproduced very precisely in time, the slightest temporal shift can be perceived as smearing. I tend to dislike when that happens in a converter, although in other contexts it can become a creative feature.

Originally Posted by Spartacus

I'm not sure anyway the "transients" Aivaras is talking about refer to pre-ringing...

Once again, I’m not referring to anti-aliasing filtering, ringing, saturation, clocking and so on. These and many more factors in the construction of a box like a converter account for its performance. And what performance is that? For me it’s how well the multifaceted fabric of music is reproduced to my ears. In the case of some converters, a snare sounds more like a snare, really, it’s that simple. And when I hear it, I say, I like the way this converter reproduced transients.

[Aivaras]

Originally Posted by MattGray

(...) A very detailed converter will likely reveal more flaws with the mix than one that has more jitter or smearing. In these cases its possible to think a less detailed converter sounds better. (...)

I find your statement very interesting. Actually, that’s how I feel when trying different monitors, precision here often does not equate with listening pleasure per se. But in the case of converters, a better performance has always resulted in a more pleasant sound even if the recorded material was deficient or flawed. I guess, ultimately converters’ performance tackles that layer of sound reality that is beyond “good” or “bad”, “perfect” or “flawed”, it’s something like “closer” or “farther” from reality, and this very closeness, even if reality itself isn’t that nice, is for some a form of pleasure.

[MattGray]

Originally Posted by Aivaras

I find your statement very interesting. Actually, that’s how I feel when trying different monitors, precision here often does not equate with listening pleasure per se.

You're right... In mastering 'listening pleasure' can often mean 'coloured' or more 'euphoric' rather than 'realistic'. Its good to have speakers that sound 'musical' but it is also very important to be able to hear right into the music so we can uncover problems & deal with them where possible. Detailed speakers really help us as mastering engineers to be able to adjust things so they bring more listening pleasure for everyone to hear. If your monitors are no better than a typical consumer system they may be glossing over many important aspects of the music which may not translate well to the rest of the world.

But in the case of converters, a better performance has always resulted in a more pleasant sound even if the recorded material was deficient or flawed.

I disagree, take a mix which has completely electronic based instruments for example. Often programmed hi-hats can sound quite bright & too piercing. On a converter that smears transients they may sound more acceptable to the ear but on a detailed converter it could be far less forgiving because it would retain the transient detail & reveal the true source to sound very glaring. In such a case I'd probably prefer the Pacific Microsonics or Lavry Gold over the Forssell for instance or perhaps its an opportunity to deal with it with usual mastering techniques & keep the more detailed converter in play. At least you've revealed the problem, it's then up to you how to fix it.

On the other hand if you have a well recorded & mixed track you may prefer the higher transient detail because it does indeed reveal how good the source sounds.

Don't forget when you're listening to the original mixes in my test files you're listening to it through your DA converter... so its being coloured in some way so how can you really know what that source is really supposed to sound like? Which DA has the 'truest' sound of the source?

[UnderTow]

Thanks for all your efforts Matt!

If someone here wants stereo files and has SoX installed, you can use this little batch file to merge the left and right channels:

@ECHO OFF

SET soxpath=C:\sox-14-3-1

CD %~dp1
IF NOT EXIST converted MKDIR converted
FOR %%i IN (Converter*L.wav) DO CALL :mergefile "%%i"
PAUSE
EXIT

:mergefile
SET left=%~1
SET right=%left:~0,11%.R.wav
SET output=%left:~0,11%.stereo.wav
ECHO Merging %left% and %right% to %output% in directory converted\%output%
%soxpath%\sox -M "%left%" "%right%" "converted\%output%"
%soxpath%\sox -M Converter_Test_Music_Sample.L.wav Converter_Test_Music_Sample.R.wav converted\Converter_Test_Music_Sample.stereo.wav

Copy and paste the above code into notepad;
change the second line to reflect the SoX path in your system;
save the file with a .bat extension;
drag any of the files onto the batch file you just saved and it will create a directory called "converted" with all the merged stereo files in there. (It will give you an error on one file but you can ignore that).

Now I can go and listen.

Alistair

[Aivaras]

Originally Posted by MattGray

I disagree, take a mix which has completely electronic based instruments for example. Often programmed hi-hats can sound quite bright & too piercing. On a converter that smears transients they may sound more acceptable to the ear but on a detailed converter it could be far less forgiving because it would retain the transient detail & reveal the true source to sound very glaring. (...)

There isn’t really room for disagreement here as I wasn’t formulating generic truths, just stating my personal experience. Yours seems to different, and I respect that.

Still, I’d like to clarify my intention as to the meaning of “pleasure” in my post. I wasn’t talking about consumer gratification. I meant a form of pleasure some get from experiencing a reproduction system as ever improving and approximating life - all those sounds and noises we hear outside of our studios. That life can be unpalatable, but the pleasure of tasting it as it is for some actually does constitute a very special kind of pleasure. So in your example with electronic hi-hats, when employing a converter of superior temporal precision, it’s a great pleasure to experience how overly bright and piercing those high-hats are, and it’s a great displeasure to hear them smeared by a more “forgiving” converter because the ear has been trained to discriminate these things and actually has formed a distaste for “slackened” or “loosened” transients.

Originally Posted by MattGray

(...) or perhaps its an opportunity to deal with it with usual mastering techniques & keep the more detailed converter in play. At least you've revealed the problem, it's then up to you how to fix it. (...)

For me that is the soundest approach, otherwise, audio signal conversion is turned into another sound-shaping processor, don’t we have enough of these already?

Originally Posted by MattGray

Don't forget when you're listening to the original mixes in my test files you're listening to it through your DA converter... so its being colored in some way so how can you really know what that source is really supposed to sound like? Which DA has the 'truest' sound of the source?

Thank you for your kind reminder. No, I don’t forget. Listening is reaching for the source, not owning it. So reflection upon it can still be meaningful even without having or being the source.

In the case of judging the “truthfulness” of transients in this particular converter shoot-out, how do I know which converter is the closest to the intention of the artist or the mixing engineer in his or her room? Well, I don’t, but my real-life experience tells me that it is much easier to transition from a clean transient to a smeared one, but not vice versa. In other words, if you have a smeared transient, even the most accurate converter will not turn it into a clean one, at best, it will accurately render it as smeared. This experience of mine is likely not universal, but I hope it forms at least some rational ground to direct my inconclusive reflection in this interesting and fruitful experiment you have generously set up for us.

[Spartacus]

Originally Posted by bango9000

I should note, by the way, that kick drum thwack is not a "low frequency" sound.

I didn't say it was.
I talked about the low frequencies included in such a transient (as you probably know, very short transients can contain very low frequencies)

Originally Posted by bango9000

I don't want to get into a dissertation off-topic in this thread, but pre-ringing [or ringing generally] in converters is not actually confined to Nyquist frequency or anything.

If you could please find me a serious paper or an article that you could forward me, even in MP if you don't want to "disturb" the topic, I would be very pleased, as I'm very curious about this. (thanks in advance)

Originally Posted by Aivaras

Actually, I’m just reporting my subjective perceptions jotted down while listening to the files provided by the original poster.

And honestly, this is where I would like to stay, on the subjective listener’s terrain, without being lured into a conversation about sampling theory and the limits of its real-life implementations.

Your call, but I'm just telling that using wrong words refering to science and physics that some people might misunderstood because of that, could lead to misconception of what a transient is.
If you want to stay on a subjective listener's terrain, ok, let's speak using subjective listener lexical field, and let's talk about cold, hot, smooth, yellow, blue, or whatever poetry "it" sounds like...but not transients, as people might be confused if you're not interested (or don't want) to explain how they are really working.

Originally Posted by Aivaras

The human ear does a lot of things when listening to music. One of them is localizing instruments in time. There is a family of instruments that is especially demanding in this respect, namely, percussive instruments. Those are the instruments that need to be reproduced very precisely in time, the slightest temporal shift can be perceived as smearing. I tend to dislike when that happens in a converter, although in other contexts it can become a creative feature.

It is all about keeping channels clocked at the same time. If a converter introduce time delays between channels, yes indeed we have a problem, and it could yields to some cancelations at certain frequencies, transient or not !
Again, it has nothing to do with "transient"...and nothing to do with some instrument family.

[Aivaras]

Originally Posted by Spartacus

Your call, but I'm just telling that using wrong words refering to science and physics that some people might misunderstood because of that, could lead to misconception of what a transient is.

The word “transient” is used in acoustics and sound engineering to describe a certain sonic property. I’ve defined what I mean by it and I don’t think I’m being idiosyncratic in my usage. Please, revisit my posts for my definition of it. What part of that definition are you not getting, what part of it is wrong or inapplicable?

Originally Posted by Spartacus

If you want to stay on a subjective listener's terrain, ok, let's speak using subjective listener lexical field, and let's talk about cold, hot, smooth, yellow, blue, or whatever poetry "it" sounds like...but not transients, as people might be confused if you're not interested (or don't want) to explain how they are really working.

Subjective descriptions need not be arbitrary or counter-scientific. I choose to stay on the perceptual side of the object-subject relationship for the benefit of this thread honoring the guidelines the original poster has set for it.

So dear Spartacus, have you listened to the audio files? What are your perceptions? Any preferences or dislikes? If so, what sound qualities made you prefer one converter over another?

Originally Posted by Spartacus

It is all about keeping channels clocked at the same time. If a converter introduce time delays between channels, yes indeed we have a problem, and it could yields to some cancelations at certain frequencies, transient or not ! Again, it has nothing to do with "transient"...and nothing to do with some instrument family.

You see, there is not the least bit of you in what you are saying. Your non-subjective statements are too abstract to bear a direct relation to what the original poster is offering and asking for in this thread. Please, listen to the files and come back with your personal findings.

[Spartacus]

Originally Posted by Aivaras

The word “transient” is used in acoustics and sound engineering to describe a certain sonic property. I’ve defined what I mean by it and I don’t think I’m being idiosyncratic in my usage. Please, revisit my posts for my definition of it. What part of that definition are you not getting, what part of it is wrong or inapplicable?

If you answer my question by another question, we'll not make it...

When I asked you first to define more what you called "transient"
"So why it should be more difficult for these converters to deal with slower slew rate than the ones they already deal with ?",
you just answered that you didn't want to go into theory conversation...So be it.
But then, don't be surprised that I still don't understand what you mean if you can't answer my first question above.
Maybe after you'll do, I'll tell you what part of your explanation I didn't get.

Originally Posted by Aivaras

So dear Spartacus, have you listened to the audio files? What are your perceptions? Any preferences or dislikes? If so, what sound qualities made you prefer one converter over another?

Yes, I've listened to the audio files, not enough to have my final opinion though. I will keep you posted about it, no worries. At least, I would need more than 4 hours to give a solid review.
By the way, how many people are doing blind test, with proper identification the first 10 times, to fail the other 10 times ? You need at least 50 attempts to be sure that the result is not cheated by bad probability. And it takes time, and some ear rest, please be patient with me.

Originally Posted by Aivaras

You see, there is not the least bit of you in what you are saying. Your non-subjective statements are too abstract to bear a direct relation to what the original poster is offering and asking for in this thread. Please, listen to the files and come back with your personal findings.

Of course my statements are not subjective when I'm talking about facts and physics ! Sometimes, we do need to follow science if we want to be called "engineer".
And I don't see how I'm not in direct relationship with this topic by asking some explanation about what you said ?
Is it a topic where no question is allowed on the understanding of what it is said inside ?

[Aisle 6]

Originally Posted by William Bowden

Good to meet you too mate, I use a couple of Velodyne's myself so enjoy the sub bass realms!

I wish I had more time, of course today my TMC arrived and even though I'm way behind (by 1 album and 1 EP and oh forget it...) I just had to get it up and running...

The King

Good to see your priorities are right. ; )

Work will always be there....I hope!

[TranscendingM]

Originally Posted by MattGray

... I've always believed that a great A/D will sound its best set as the master clock...

thumbsup

[Ben F]

Originally Posted by Aisle 6

Hey Ben, Adam and King Willy.
Great to meet you all last week and shoot shit over dinner. : )

It was also very interesting to have a listen to the converters in someone else's environment. Ben/Adam, you guys inspired me to add a sub to my ATC monitoring path. Pulled the trigger on a Velodyne.

I will have a listen to the files in the next few days. Looking forward to hear them in my environment. Thanks for all the effort Matt. I am sure that people will get a lot out of it.
Cheers,
Scott

Hi Scott,

Hope that 15" sub is shaking the room!

Originally Posted by dcollins

It's good to see someone going the extra mile for quality.

How much to get "palpable" in there as well?


DC

Ha, Ha. Yeah.

Actually, I haven't priced the palpability upgrade lately. I've just been using my "magical audiophile palpability enhancer cables" for that. I'm sure a guy like you has access to all that stuff anytime, right? But if you need anything, let me know, and I'll get you a deal on some [maybe even some freebies!]

Originally Posted by Aivaras

I wasn’t talking about consumer gratification. I meant a form of pleasure some get from experiencing a reproductive system as ever improving and approximating life - all those sounds and noises we hear outside of our studios.

Small housekeeping item, just for clarity my friend.

I think you meant to say reproduction system. Right?

Speaking for myself, my "ever improving reproductive system" doesn't just approximate life, it actually begets it!

[Aivaras]

Originally Posted by bango9000

Small housekeeping item, just for clarity my friend.

I think you meant to say reproduction system. Right?

Well, of course! I’ll go back and edit that word.

Originally Posted by bango9000

Speaking for myself, my "ever improving reproductive system" doesn't just approximate life, it actually begets it!

Nice one! But for the sake of a well-natured argument isn’t it true, though, that even in your modified sense most of it is trial and approximation, and begetting but a rare success?

[ISedlacek]

I really wonder why in case of music and sound examples people are not able just to listen and say - I like it or not, or I like this more and this less and that's it. This kind of excessive artificial theoretical discussions by which spartacus and his friends regularly flood any similar occasion here do not make much sense to me, sorry. If someone is not able to say whether he likes something or not, then he should better not comment and for him probably any equipment sounds the same ... We are making real music and real sound, not dealing with lifeless theories and artificial disputations ... It is like having a food and instead of tasting it at all and comparing to other food (sure, it is always subjective), we start making endless lectures and discussions about the physiological nature of taste organs etc.

Something like

[Aivaras]

Originally Posted by Spartacus

When I asked you first to define more what you called "transient" (...)

I did answer your question, didn’t I? Why then “more”, when there is “enough”. I surmise, by “more” you mean “give a different definition that would accord with the inner technical workings of the box called a converter”. I’m not putting words into your mouth, just surmising. You want to shift the epistemic perspective and thus change the topic. Please, try to see it – namely, that there are two perspectives involved here with their own vocabularies, neither of which is better or more disciplined than the other.

Originally Posted by Spartacus

"So why it should be more difficult for these converters to deal with slower slew rate than the ones they already deal with ?",
you just answered that you didn't want to go into theory conversation...So be it.
But then, don't be surprised that I still don't understand what you mean if you can't answer my first question above.
Maybe after you'll do, I'll tell you what part of your explanation I didn't get.

I have a perception P of a box B. I am reporting P. You question what it is in B that triggers P. I say could be many things but lets not enmesh ourselves in them for the moment. You say my reluctance to talk about B compromises P. This simply doesn’t follow. If anything, your tentative explanations of B may change over time with P all the while remaining a constant.

I am shying away from talking about converter design out of respect and not disrespect for science. These are very complex devices, the sound of which is the result of many interacting parts both in terms of their function and their material quality. It cannot be simplified to this or that singular concept, either we consider the working of a converter in all of its complexity (the professional turf of the designer) or allow this topic to rest for a better occasion and concentrate on our perceptions of the sound files at hand.

It is O.K. if you disagree, but let us not belabor these points anymore. I am not questioning your technical concerns, instead, I’m suggesting that these concerns, valid as they are, should at times constitute the periphery and not the core of the issue.

Originally Posted by Spartacus

Yes, I've listened to the audio files, not enough to have my final opinion though.

I am sincerely looking forward to hearing your reactions!