That must be why you don’t seem to be understanding me.
I’m far from dogmatic. I’ve spent years listening to many systems, a/b’ing various cables, playing musical instruments, singing, writing DSP code… Many times I’ve been surprised when experiments exposed holes in my understanding (cool, a learning opportunity.)
On the other hand when someone tries to convince me that 2 + 2 = 5, I don’t take them very seriously.
No. I think the Engineer should listen to the final output but base their entire design of a digital source on science. Something analog is different. I do not want to listen to what suits someone else’s taste. Ted just removes the noise AFAIK. Whatever he does he has done a splendid job IMO. Other products are “tailored” to a designers ear and I may not have the same ear. That is what I meant.
Nearly all the effort on the mechanical side of making vinyl sound better (than with worse turntables) is put in lowering noise, noise from outside, noise caused by the motor, noise caused by interference, noise caused by needle vibration feedback etc.
That vinyl playing for some even betters digital is inspite, note because of having that kind of noise and distortion inherent.
There might be some who like the a bloated bass or midrange (perceived as pleasant) caused by vibration and distortion in worse vinyl setups, in case the balance of the rest of their setups needs it. But this is not the strength of vinyl reproduction, even if it might be the most popular and misunderstood characteristic. Vinyl reproduction is able to show its advantages the most when all noise, vibration and distortion influences are minimized.
The only reason when pure technologically logic measures (like lowering noise) don’t immediately lead to better sound is, when other parallel optimal technological or surrounding preconditions are not reached yet. Then more noise might compensate occasionally in less good setups (digital or vinyl related). But that’s then not part of a strategy leading to the goal of better sound.
I think it’s worth understanding that “sounds better” is not a universal truth. “Sounds better” is not a scientific fact carved in stone to which all designs and systems must do what they can to achieve “sounds better”. In my own experience, which is only true for me, I found the noise lowering in Windom vs Snowmass to be unpleasant. It’s a small example, but an honest one. Yet my experience does destroy the notion that lower noise “always” equals better sound. And changes it to a more truthful statement that lower noise alters the sound and some people prefer that lower noise experience, and some don’t.
It is dogmatic to take the position that lower noise always sounds better. Sounds better to whom? The “sounds better” part is entirely subjective, a completely personal and individual experience. Your quest for lower noise may sound better to you, it may sound better to most of your customers, but it is not a universal truth. The land of audiophiles is a super narrow slice of humanity. It’s worth considering that fact when one begins to formulate a dogma of how “sounds better” is achieved.
Paul has made videos pointing out that professional musicians mostly have little interest in audiophile sound. Are we to then assume that musicians don’t care about sound quality? Or is it that “sounds better” to them is more of an artistic and emotional experience than one which is technically better?
My challenge to the dogma is that yes, lower noise certainly changes the sound, but whether or not it’s a “better” sound is entirely up to the one doing the listening rather than a universal truth.
I’m in no position to debate the technical design qualities of audio gear with you. But I can effectively debate the thought process that goes into how things are perceived. From that angle of how the human brain behaves, of how it clumsily depends upon a certainty that itself created, I can express caution around the notion that lower noise always improves the sound. Yes, it improves it for those who like that particular type of sound. Yet given the vast majority of the world have never heard that type of sound it’s therefore impossible to conclude that it is indeed a “better sound” to most humans.
Going back to vinyl, it’s resurgence is not due to most people having an expensive, low noise vinyl rig. It’s popularity is vastly centered around most people using under $300 turntable playing through an inexpensive stereo. For them, that higher noise arrangement sounds great.
It’s very easy for audiophiles to get lost in their own world, and in a degree of arrogance, assume that they are carrying the pure flame of sonic truth, and that audiophile belief systems are the carrier of that truth. In the end, it’s only true to the one who perceives it. That sort of truth is never universal.
For me, a more advanced type of audio design would not get stuck on the notion of lower noise always equalling better sound. It would step out of that laboratory setting and seek to understand how the non-audiophile community, which is most of the world, and apparently most pro musicians as well, how they perceive good sound. To understand why “noisy” music sounds good to them. And then incorporate that artistic type of understanding into audio playback design.
My unfounded guess is that there’s much to be learned about the emotional connection to music, rather than just focusing on lower noise or other scientific brain centered approaches.
“…those who search for, or imagine they have found, the perpetual motion, are always men to whom the most certain and invariable truths in mechanics are unknown.”
—Jacques Ozanam (1640-1717)
As I said I don’t take people that claim 2 + 2 = 5 seriously: I didn’t read your post for obvious reasons.
There is a huge difference between noise and distortion. I have yet to hear noise, all other things being equal, that sounds better than less noise or no noise. I can’t say that for distortion. Noise sucks away clarity, soundstage, musicality, separation, etc. Noise is just plain bad. If you can get rid of noise without altering anything else, it will never sound worse.
Wall of words.
Less snark would be welcome!
Sorry, I lost it when he posted this (and his other posts on that part of that thread):
{rant on}Tho it’s worded a little strongly what I more object to is that I had (repeatedly) answered his questions about the technology and further provided a link to a well written explanation of how phase noise causes audible noise. Since then he has been hijacking threads to push his new epiphany and ignoring anything that might help him understand the world better.
I knew he wouldn’t acknowledge learning anything from my posts but I was pretty sure some other people would appreciate them.{rant off}
You were fine. I was talking to @Elk.
I wish this forum software would make it clear who one was responding too if the response immediately followed the post being responded to…
I was still too snarky - I knew better, but a (very few) people have been bugging me for a while and I figured I’d give as I got.
Snarky? Yes! But, considering recent exchanges, I had no issues with it.
Sorry, I should have been more clear. My comment means there was too much there to parse through, not a judgment on what is being said/not said.
Absolutely.
I am fine if the Engineer listens to it. They should. I just mean it should not be their “taste”. Since their taste may not be everyone’s taste. It should just sound good. For instance I could not say the DSS appeals to one person. It does not. There are products that do however. This is hit or miss. I think you folks mistook what I was speaking of. A certain company in particular tunes to their own ears. It is either love it or hate it.
There are people who think the earth is flat. I know you don’t have such views, so why are you involving us (especially busy Ted) in such a discussion?
speed-racer, I’m pretty sure that if you select the Reply option to the right of any entry you will be replying to that entry (and will see that member’s name on the right of your reply). However, if you select the blue Reply option at the bottom on the left you are replying overall rather than to a specific member. This means that unless there’s a mamber name on the right of a new entry the writer has not specifically replied to the immediately previous entry.
I’m sure Elk could explain that better than me (explaining things has never been one of my strong points).
UPDATE - it would be better if the Blue Reply option at the bottom left of the screen were changed to something like Add A Comment
As far as I understood, @dancingsea decided for a Border Patrol DAC and tried to challenge Ted a bit for the Border Patrol sound and design philosophy. But I guess Ted will be no convert 
It’s always difficult to make an argumentation out of ones own current journey because it often just has valid points for the individual and for the individual even often just temporarily.
But I do get @dancingseas topic about holistic sound philosophy vs. an isolated technical point of view. I just think the following argumentation towards Ted didn’t hit a valid point.
For me it’s simple. Ideas are cheap, they become something when they are used to make progress (in some dimension.) My whole life experience is that lowering the noise floor is good. Further, I put my money where my mouth was, literally.
I spent years with no income developing a DAC based (partially) on lowering noise. Every step of the way lowering noise and doing things in a better way technically made myself (and later, most customers) happier. Tho not everyone upgraded on each release I don’t know of anyone who, after trying a later release, chose to go back 3 or 4 releases to a noisier version.
Multiple people have come along and suggested this or that to make the DS better. Many with good intentions, but not all. (Some wanted money before they would explain their ideas.) I don’t doubt the sincerity of most. On the other hand I can’t work using principles which directly contradict my whole life experience, especially when there’s zero evidence that those ideas are useful.
If an idea is really useful, then the proponent should build something using it as a guide and gain from it: money, fame, whatever. With an idea that bucks common sense or common design practice, untill such a proponent has some flesh in the game and some demonstrable results why would anyone take them seriously?
You are entirely correct although, if I recall correctly, there have been some reports the clicking on the Reply to the right on the last post of a thread sometimes does not link the reply to that post.