Pricing out the competition - Page 2 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Member Areas > The Lounge

The Lounge A place to talk about almost anything but politics and religion.

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 20th April 2012, 06:15 AM   #11
jcx is offline jcx  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: ..
dishonest and mistaken are not the same thing

help us understand how your interpretation of lacking "total honesty" isn't simply a code for not agreeing with you
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th April 2012, 06:21 AM   #12
diyAudio Member
 
abraxalito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hangzhou - Marco Polo's 'most beautiful city'. 700yrs is a long time though...
Blog Entries: 104
Send a message via MSN to abraxalito Send a message via Yahoo to abraxalito Send a message via Skype™ to abraxalito
Perhaps you are considering that I'm remarking on his dishonesty as conscious dishonesty - no, I'm not claiming that he's consciously dishonest. He's dishonest in the sense that he's inconsistent, not that he's trying to cheat anyone. His dishonesty is self-deception as far as I can make out. Its the dishonesty of relying on untested assumptions, not the dishonesty of chicanery.

Does any of that help you understand better? If not, further questions in pursuit of clarification welcomed.
__________________
I have the advantage of having found out how hard it is to get to really know something... how easy it is to make mistakes and fool yourself. - Richard Feynman
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th April 2012, 06:29 AM   #13
jcx is offline jcx  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: ..
choosing different weighting of the available evidence than you do for "audio quality" isn't necessarily "inconsistent" - care to give an few examples of his unconscious dishonesty/inconsistent claims/beliefs?

Lots of "us" don't see a problem with insisting on DBT protocols for assuring that hearing alone is the sense being used to determine “audibility” - doesn't have to be ABX, careful perceptual testing can include training, scoring for different "focus", knowing the compared products, only the Blinding, level matching of the experimental trials is non-negotiable

Last edited by jcx; 20th April 2012 at 06:36 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th April 2012, 06:36 AM   #14
diyAudio Member
 
abraxalito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hangzhou - Marco Polo's 'most beautiful city'. 700yrs is a long time though...
Blog Entries: 104
Send a message via MSN to abraxalito Send a message via Yahoo to abraxalito Send a message via Skype™ to abraxalito
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcx View Post
choosing different weighting of the available evidence than you do for "audio quality" isn't necessarily "inconsistent"
Choosing 'objective' measures of audio quality is dishonest - audio is subjectively perceived. Of course if evidence that the chosen 'objective' measures correlate well with perceived quality then the dishonesty is mitigated.

Quote:
- care to give an few examples of his unconscious dishonesty/inconsistent claims/beliefs?
From his blog, a first example where he's not supporting his claim with evidence, as a proclaimed 'objectivist' would, to maintain consistency:

When you know your audio gear is genuinely transparent it opens a worry-free window into the music that’s uniquely satisfying.


How does he know his audio gear is 'genuinely transparent' ? Answer - he compared it in blind testing with the Benchmark DAC. Which leads to the question - how does he know that's 'genuinely transparent'. If he's done rigorous testing for that then he doesn't tell us about it. Curious minds want to know.

<edit> I myself see no problem with DBT testing either. Problems do arise in the implementation of those tests, keeping them truly impartial though. No disagreement in principle from me however.
__________________
I have the advantage of having found out how hard it is to get to really know something... how easy it is to make mistakes and fool yourself. - Richard Feynman

Last edited by abraxalito; 20th April 2012 at 06:43 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th April 2012, 07:05 AM   #15
diyAudio Member
 
jan.didden's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Great City of Turnhout, Belgium
Blog Entries: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by abraxalito View Post
[snip]
When you know your audio gear is genuinely transparent it opens a worry-free window into the music thatís uniquely satisfying.
[snip].
Abrax, I'm puzzled why you take issue with such a statement; is it because it is from a self-proclaimed (or so I understand) objectivist?

Surely you know that this is the type of statements streaming incessantly from the proclaimed subjectivists. Actually this statement is one of the better ones coming out of that direction.

And besides that, the statement doesn't say that his stuff IS transparent - he 'only' says that IF you know it is, it would be uniquely satisfying (whatever that is). You may not agree with it (I don't) but to stamp it as dishonest/inconsistent seems extreme for you.

jan
__________________
If you don't change your beliefs, your life will be like this forever. Is that good news? - W. S. Maugham
Check out Linear Audio!
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th April 2012, 07:09 AM   #16
diyAudio Member
 
abraxalito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hangzhou - Marco Polo's 'most beautiful city'. 700yrs is a long time though...
Blog Entries: 104
Send a message via MSN to abraxalito Send a message via Yahoo to abraxalito Send a message via Skype™ to abraxalito
If you read further down his blog, he is claiming that both his ODAC and the DAC1 are audibly transparent.

And, while I suffer from expectation bias just like everyone else, I’ve run a second blind listening test and can report the O2+ODAC held its own against the $1600 Benchmark DAC1. They both are audibly transparent.

If such a claim were to come from a subjectivist then it would not be inconsistent not to offer any 'objective' verification for this. However for an objectivist to be consistent, they would offer it.
__________________
I have the advantage of having found out how hard it is to get to really know something... how easy it is to make mistakes and fool yourself. - Richard Feynman
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th April 2012, 02:54 PM   #17
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by abraxalito View Post
If you read further down his blog, he is claiming that both his ODAC and the DAC1 are audibly transparent.
I read down his comments a bit this one might be of interest - link

Quote:
The ODAC and DAC1 both measure sufficiently well to be transparent. But they do measure differently and the DAC1 has a performance advantage in several areas, especially jitter. Yet they sound the same.

Basically my understing of his logic is that both ODAC and DAC1 meet the criteria set out before his tests. The DAC1 measures better than ODAC. Under some blind tests he has run (details as yet pretty much unknown from what I have read) it is not possible to reliably tell the two apart. This seems to be his criteria for audible transparency.

I'd be interested to hear what people's opinions are on that as a valid test for transparency.
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th April 2012, 08:41 PM   #18
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
I'd say that it's evidence tending to suggest transparency, and that if you had 3 DACs all indistinguishable that would more strongly suggest transparency, and so on, as the number of indistinguishable pieces of apparatus increases so the likelihood that they are NOT transparent but all identically flawed decreases.
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th April 2012, 08:44 PM   #19
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic_real_one View Post
It is not necesarelly a money barrier.
I have blown $250 on a sound card with AKM AK5394 ADC (THD+N -110dB). If I buy some $100 software I think I can do the same audio measurements like the $10K tool from above.
As for new enterpises... fads are coming and going, only the sound remains the same.
OK, I hope so. I'd like to see some comparison tests though with details of the test conditions.
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th April 2012, 09:21 PM   #20
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by SY View Post
Are you saying that unless someone has a particular piece of test equipment, they can't sell headphone amps?
No, SY. What I'm saying is that anyone wishing to sell headphone amps now needs to be able to measure their offering to the same calibrated standard or stand in danger of coming under attack if the equipment doesn't measure up in objective terms. I'm not saying either that this is entirely a bad thing, but what I am saying is that otherwise honest developers now face a cost barrier that they previously did not. Whereas they might previously in good faith have designed a piece of equipment for which they quoted a specification based on good practice and on the datasheets for the devices or on simulations and thus gained a toehold in the market, this is now a business plan which looks less attractive.

Perhaps a more charitable approach to improving standards in the marketplace would be to offer a free or low-cost design review service, which would probably attract less hostility from individuals who find their incomes under attack by somebody who is obviously not hurting for money himself. Anyone declining such assistance then becomes fair game.

Softly, softly, catchee monkey.
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What's up with the 3015lf pricing?? m R g S r Subwoofers 46 13th July 2011 07:20 PM
Seas Exotic Pricing Arc Full Range 68 23rd November 2010 10:05 PM
Summer Special Pricing!! CSS/XBL CSS 0 19th June 2010 06:31 PM
mouser pricing jarthel Parts 1 4th October 2006 02:58 AM
SACD Pricing fcel Digital Source 9 17th September 2001 02:51 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 07:08 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2