New version of DACtester is posted

[Ulas]

DACtester.zip

[drlava]

I was reading about your jitter tests here
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread/t-85283.html
but all of your figures are now dead links and DACtester was no longer available for download!

If anyone has a copy of DACtester, could they link it here so that this utility isn't forever lost?
thanks.

[gmarsh]

Thank you!

I use this software for testing DSP code and all sorts of other things at work and at home - it's far more than just a 'DAC tester'. Thanks for making this available.

[macgyver]

Originally posted by drlava
I was reading about your jitter tests here
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread/t-85283.html
but all of your figures are now dead links and DACtester was no longer available for download!

If anyone has a copy of DACtester, could they link it here so that this utility isn't forever lost?
thanks.

Is this the same DACtester?

http://didnt.doit.wisc.edu/audio/ddd.../DACTester.zip

[jbokelman]

Originally posted by drlava
If anyone has a copy of DACtester, could they link it here so that this utility isn't forever lost?

Ulas was excommunicated because he didn’t show proper respect to the clock mongers and kit peddlers who use this forum to promote their business interests.

As far as I know, every version of DACtester posted on this forum contained intentional errors. Ulas reasoned, because nearly every design posted here had errors, why should DACtester be any different? With each release he increased the number and severity of the errors yet, aside from the very obvious, random startup error in the first version posted, no one ever noticed. As he always said, the diyAudio Experts don’t know diddlysquat about anything digital.

The most recent version with the ‘D’ suffix is a tribute to dither. The digital audio experts say dither is a good thing and, even though it can amount to over 12dB of added noise, no one here has every complained about it or even noticed it. So, DACtester randomly adds random noise to random calculations and functions. If random noise is good for digital audio, it ought to be good for digital computer programs, too. Call it Ulas’ revenge.

[pinkmouse]

He isn't banned, he can post here any time he wants as long as he obeys the rules. However, if the above is true, then it shows the kind of anti-social behavour that typifies the kind of idiotic member we don't want.

[drlava]

I am very sad to hear that, because he was obviously a good programmer, and one that belieived that repeatable measurements could be used to help advance the art.

It's funny you say that about his program, however, because a search here about DACtester reveals NO discussion along those lines. Can you link to a relevant thread where DACtester was shown to introduce errors?

Too many non-blind tests occurr in the audio field, and too much money is made based on those 'reviews' of these super-components. Even the studio recordings were not made with such exotic components, yet the testers and reviewers are overcome with emotion at the difference in sound when they are used in the playback.

I am new to this forum, hopefully I will not discover that dissenters are silenced/shunned away as apparently this man was.

[pinkmouse]

Originally posted by drlava
I am new to this forum, hopefully I will not discover that dissenters are silenced/shunned away as apparently this man was.

Welome to diyAudio drlava.

Technical dissent is fine, and in fact, we encourage open debate on any relevant audio topic. However personal abuse, in any fashion, is not tolerated.

[jbokelman]

The truth be told, Ulas is a colleague and I am the creator of DACtester and JitterDither. I wrote them for my own use. It was Ulas’ idea to post crippled versions on this forum as an experiment to see if any of the assorted digital experts, analog gurus, and audio golden ears here would notice and be able to diagnose simple software problems. I didn’t like the idea at first but after I read some of the nonsense being spewed out by the self-proclaimed digital experts I thought it would be fun: But only if the introduced errors were obvious yet benign and the version numbers indicated beta status.

The early versions of JitterDither and DACtester had the same startup problem and although the source for JitterDither was posted, no one here was able to diagnose and fix the problem. A few of the more computer-savvy users discovered a workaround by running the programs in compatibility mode but the pompous jerks, the ones who think they know everything about everything and say Ulas doesn’t know what he is talking about, didn’t have a clue.

Originally posted by pinkmouse
However, if the above is true, then it shows the kind of anti-social behavour that typifies the kind of idiotic member we don't want.

Even though my email address is on the ‘about’ page, no one has ever contacted me regarding either program and only one person has ever contacted Ulas to ask for a copy of DACtester. From that we assumed no one was using either program. If that’s the case, what’s antisocial about posting crippled software that no one uses? And who accepts beta release software from an unknown source on the Internet and expects perfection? What’s antisocial are those who have happily used DACtester for years and never bothered to thank me or Ulas for writing it and posting it on this forum.

Originally posted by drlava
It's funny you say that about his program, however, because a search here about DACtester reveals NO discussion along those lines. Can you link to a relevant thread where DACtester was shown to introduce errors?

There is no relevant discussion because either no one was using the software or those who were didn’t notice the very obvious programming errors. If you haven’t noticed any errors and the program’s performance meets you expectations, then there is no problem.

[Cobra2]

may we please have a working copy?

Arne K