The Border Patrol DAC - Maybe linearity in a DAC is bad ... Spitballing

@gwbeers, 
Nice analogy. My father was a film editor back when they used film. Towards the end of his career digital was coming on scene and he hated it. It's implementation lagged way behind the promises. 

Today it's great but back then, as a child, even I could see how bad it was.

All the best,
Nonoise

Numerous posts on this thread attest to the very good sound quality of the Border Patrol DAC (BP). I’ve heard the BP and Benchmark (BM) although not in the same systems. In a general overall assessment the BP was more natural sounding and realistic IMO.

Herb Reichert’s rebuttal comments are exceedingly telling comparing the BP versus the BM. The BP captured and revealed master tape information /nuance completely missed by the BM DAC. in addition the BM struck him as harmonically threadbare, hard and cold (similar to my listening impression).

The BM has superior measurements and specifications. What does this yield? What is the benefit of the better numbers? Why does the poorer measuring BP retain critical master tape sonic and musical information that "disappears" when heard through the BM? It suggests that the ’superior measurements have little correlation with actual sound quality. Most experienced listeners already know this.
Charles

@charles1dad

@nonoise

Because all these listening impressions are done knowing the brand/price/looks.

Unless you are doing double-blind, quick-switching, level-matched comparisons, it is scientifically impossible to thoroughly compare the sound of two different products. So Michael Furmer’s story of how he heard a difference in his $18,000 speaker cables when he was in another room working while another person wired them up, cannot he taken as there truly being a difference, even if he believes so.

I could make my own speaker cables for $100, give a BS description, charge $5000, and I gaurentee you if I do a demo at an audio show, I will get positive reviews and maybe even a customer or two.

There is no way the Benchmark DAC could remove the soundfield information of being recorded in a church, the placement of the musicians, etc. Those comments easily show that it’s all in his mind. You can talk about tonal balance, distortion, noise floor, channel separation, etc., but saying it removes the church walls is just ridiculous.

And again, the Benchmark is proven to be not cold, regardless of sighted listening impressions. Being cold is a rolled off bass (or emphasized treble; kinda the same thing if volume matched), and the Benchmark is dead flat. It could only have rounded off bass if your speakers were made with tube amps in mind, very few exist today (I only recall seeing 1 brand), but maybe if your speakers are from the 60’s.

I hate to repeat this, but a speaker at an AES myth busting talk gave a story of how he tricked people into thinking a McIntosh tube amp was playing when in fact it was a solid state, and the people described it differently than the same solid state amp it was supposedly being compared against. If doctors have to give sugar cube placebos to make sure drugs work, you can bet our ears can be fooled in what we are hearing (just like our eyes were fooled with the color of the dress a while back).

@mzkmxzv,

You hydrogen based life forms are funny. Anyone can be tricked, even those who adhere strictly to measurements. It is with long term critical listening that we appreciate the differences and distinctions. 

Quick switching (A/B/X, whatever) is nothing more than a cheap parlor trick. Even your ears would be fooled into thinking you're hearing an excellently measured piece of kit about half the time when it's not.

Sighted references are just that and no amount of back seat psychobabble will account for all the situations as there are people who can overcome the stupidity of listening tests because they do have better ears. It's statistically inevitable that they can. Do the math since you're so good at it.

Also, all of your anecdotal evidence is just that. For every story you dredge up, there are those that prove the other point of view. And please, everyone, don't let someone dictate what "cold and sterile" is for you as mzkmxzc states.

For me, it's an unemotional and dry presentation. It can be full of bass and have what most would consider a normal treble but where it fails for me is a deficit of tone, body and timbre: a threadbare presentation. It simply won't pass the test of fooling anyone in an adjoining room or even off to the side  that something live is playing. It will measure well but it will not sound right.

All the best,
Nonoise

Reichert is a very experienced listener and professional reviewer who additionally had access to the live Chesky studio and master file. He had access to both DACs and could compare directly.  It doesn’t get much better than this in terms of knowing the actual sound of the recording you are listening to. 

 He is quite adamant that he heard musical information that was present on the master file  and subsequently conveyed convincingly with the BP .  The BM was notably inferior  under these listening circumstances according to him..  he simply and honestly reported what he heard. I don’t believe for a moment there are any ‘mind games’ being played here.  

One may not like the results of his listening sessions but he is reporting what he experienced.  In this scenario one DAC was clearly found to be better than the other, in this case the better sounding DAC happened to be the BP 
 Charles