Pricing out the competition - Page 4 - 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 22nd April 2012, 11:25 PM   #31
diyAudio Member
 
RocketScientist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Northwest
Quote:
Originally Posted by qusp View Post
notice i'm not even talking about objectively inferior products, even well engineered products, some would say ESPECIALLY well engineered products as they have higher costs to cover doing things properly. so this may well backfire, putting the well meaning start ups out of business whether they do their job well or not
Obviously neither of us can predict the future, but it doesn't seem likely I'm going to put any "well meaning starts ups out of business." Any company who wants to market their products objectively, and has no way to properly measure them, can pay a few bucks to a consulting engineer and get them tested. To otherwise just make up specs isn't "well meaning", it's borderline fraud. And any company, like say Bottlehead or Schiit, that has a mostly or entirely subjective marketing pitch doesn't need a product that measures well.

The idea is to raise the bar by showing what's possible, what really matters objectively, and if companies make objective claims to hold them accountable for those claims. Why should audio be different than say Secrets of Home Theater exposing all the DVD players that flunked lots of objective tests? People buy a DVD (or Blu Ray) player expecting it to accurately reproduce what's on the disc not tint it green or turn diagonal lines into coarse jagged ones.

If the gear isn't accurate, or the company has no idea, a well meaning company shouldn't make claims with no basis in fact. This is just one example but the concept holds true for most objective claims. So I don't see how I'm causing harm to well meaning honest companies. Only the ones trying to deceive people with false objective claims need worry and even most of those, just like the expensive wine makers, will still find plenty of buyers.

Finally, the O2 and ODAC are not being sold especially cheaply. They could be mass produced for a small fraction of what they're currently selling for. And, for the O2, by anyone. So the hypothetical company that you argue "can't complete" can just start selling the O2 if that's really their biggest hurdle. I also hope to have a fully open source DAC someday. But, honestly, anyone who knows which end of a soldering iron to hang onto can probably reverse engineer the existing ODAC when it hits the street. The can go sign the right paperwork with Tenor and ESS and make their own. China is famous for doing exactly that. To me they're a much bigger threat to boutique audio start ups than I am.
__________________
http://nwavguy.com - Personal non-commercial audio blog

Last edited by RocketScientist; 22nd April 2012 at 11:38 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd April 2012, 11:35 PM   #32
qusp is offline qusp  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
qusp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Brisbane, Australia
sorry you missed the point again. no matter what they do or what claims they make. lets say they have a normal operating budget they do all the right things, dont make any claims they cant actually do (which takes more than throwing a few dollars at the problem, sorry thats ridiculous, youve outlined in your blog how much work went in to choosing each part to meet the criteria and you want to say a few dollars testing?). to imply that throwing a few dollars at a testing firm somehow makes a difference to the fact that your dac is being offered without anyone paying much for advertising, you do that for them as does the viral marketing team, they dont have to pay the designer, you did that for them, they dont have to cover multiple generations of prototype, you did that for them, they dont have to pay for documentation or manual, you did that for them, they dont have to pay any licensing, you gave it away for free. thats the majority of the costs of bringing a product to market, the cost of parts, though significant, fades in comparison to these factors, which have been taken out of the equation.

but not for the honest competitor, you have raised the bar for what their costs are, which can be argued should be the case and i agree for the most part, but you have then given them an impossible sales target to match and an impossible budget, given a real production and design workflow with actual costs and actual paid labor

Last edited by qusp; 22nd April 2012 at 11:41 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd April 2012, 11:52 PM   #33
qusp is offline qusp  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
qusp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Brisbane, Australia
doesnt apply quite the same here with the dac as much as with the amp, because George had costs, some licensing for the USB input and put in his time for spinning board revisions etc, but there is still a massive chunk of costs that would normally be there that are missing
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd April 2012, 12:28 AM   #34
diyAudio Member
 
RocketScientist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Northwest
I can't argue with some of that, but fundamentally how is the O2 that different than Owen's The Wire project here? He used an expensive Audio Precision analyzer to refine his design. I don't see anyone questioning his motives. What's so horrible about sharing a design for free?

The "Microsoft whining about Linux" analogy has a lot of validity. The people who put lots of free time into the development of Linux were not doing it with the expectation of putting Microsoft out of business (however much some may have disliked MS). They were doing it because they wanted to provide an option and show what else was possible.

Competition is nearly always a good thing for consumers in the long run. But, somehow, you seem to be saying it's bad in this case if I'm understanding you correctly?
__________________
http://nwavguy.com - Personal non-commercial audio blog
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd April 2012, 01:33 AM   #35
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: 98
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 RocketScientist View Post
Abraxalito's attack on my transparency comment completely ignores all the research behind that comment.
I've been over to your blog and read 'What we Hear' and it was a very long article, with a fair few red herrings. So its possible I missed where you posted up the results and experimental methods of rigorous audibility trials. If so just help me out here and I will retract my criticism. In science its the person who claims who must support and you claim 'audible transparency'.

Quote:
Does Abraxalito claim he can hear distortion and other anomalies that are -100 dB below the music?
No, I make no such claims. And have said that I don't in public (on DIYA) at least once. But this is irrelevant - I'm not making the claim that I can. If I were then you'd be reasonable to ask me to support that, just as I'm asking you to provide support for your claim of 'audible transparency'. Instead of providing support, you engage in red herrings. Strange that.

Quote:
Can he prove he can? Plenty of people have demonstrated you can't. I've even provided links to test files made by Ethan Winer than demonstrate even the most dissonant obnoxious noise is readily masked by even soft acoustic music at -75 dB. Listen for yourself.
Deflection.

Quote:
Ethan Winer defines and explains the required measurements for audio transparency in the video linked above. Then he provides many examples where you can listen for yourself. There are also links to supporting AES papers.
I've followed Ethan Winer for quite some time, nowhere have I seen him produce experimental results based on listening to the Benchmark DAC1 which demonstrate its 'audible transparency'. But if I've missed them just give me the link and I'll shut up.

Quote:
What are Abraxalito's credentials? How can he credibly challenge all of the above? Where are his published peer reviewed AES papers?
More deflection

Quote:
Audio differencing (null testing) has shown that even using real music into real loads, amplifiers deliver performance that follows sine wave measurements. If null testing shows everything an amplifier is doing is below -75 dB can someone still credibly argue that amp somehow isn't audibly transparent?
If you've done null testing on your ODAC that would indeed be a great start. Can you provide links showing your DAC produces better than a -75dB null? - I'd be impressed if you can.

Quote:
If so I'd love to see the credible evidence. I've presented numerous peer reviewed AES papers, a great video by a panel of experts complete with downloadable files you can listen to for yourself, other well documented blind tests, and much more.
Blind testing on DAC1 or ODAC would be interesting. Haven't seen published experimental details so far. Should I hold my breath?

Quote:
I ask everyone: What credible objective data has Abraxalito, or any of my other critics, presented in support of their criticisms? I haven't seen anything.
None is required because I'm making no claims about my DAC so far. You're claiming and yet not supporting, which is unscientific.
__________________
It doesn't have to take the form of a conspiracy, rather a consensus... James H Kunstler
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd April 2012, 02:03 AM   #36
diyAudio Member
 
RocketScientist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Northwest
Quote:
Originally Posted by abraxalito View Post
Blind testing on DAC1 or ODAC would be interesting. Haven't seen published experimental details so far. Should I hold my breath?
I have the feeling, no matter how much detail I documented of the blind test, you would find ways to insist it was invalid. I believe you've even taken shots at Meyer & Moran with their 600 trial year long effort. Without you wearing the headphones yourself, it seems you're impossible to satisfy when you want to be on the other side of the fence--as clearly you do here.

All you would have to do is insist both listeners in the ODAC vs DAC1 test were predisposed to hearing no difference. So until we get some genuine critics who expect to hear a difference wearing the headphones, it's pointless for me to document the test further. I've made it clear it wasn't a highly rigorous test.

Quote:
Originally Posted by abraxalito View Post
I've followed Ethan Winer for quite some time, nowhere have I seen him produce experimental results based on listening to the Benchmark DAC1 which demonstrate its 'audible transparency'. But if I've missed them just give me the link and I'll shut up.
Well if you actually watch the video, and look at the power point slides, you'll see Ethan presents his criteria for transparency. I point it out very clearly in my article. He clearly states gear meeting those specs will sound just like every other gear meeting those specs because it's transparent and its contribution to the signal path is inaudible. The ODAC and DAC1 meet those specs (see all the AP measurements in the back of the DAC1 manual, the Stereophile measurements, or any number of other reviews as you apparently don't like my numbers). So Ta Da! By his definition the ODAC is transparent.

So there's the criteria for my claim. Will you please shut up now? (but we all know you won't. And, sorry to disappoint you, but you've proven many times over you're not worth the time at the keyboard to debate blow by blow. Others here have called you a troll multiple times including some of the moderators.)
__________________
http://nwavguy.com - Personal non-commercial audio blog

Last edited by RocketScientist; 23rd April 2012 at 02:06 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd April 2012, 02:33 AM   #37
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: 98
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 RocketScientist View Post
I have the feeling, no matter how much detail I documented of the blind test, you would find ways to insist it was invalid.
That's peer review for you - you've chosen the 'objective' route in terms of marketing your designs and science is very unforgiving of lack of rigour in the longer term. If you've done the science I'll be impressed. But somehow I do get the feeling that with all the deflections in your earlier post, it just won't have been done. In which case most certainly I won't be going away any time soon.

Quote:
I believe you've even taken shots at Meyer & Moran with their 600 trial year long effort. Without you wearing the headphones yourself, it seems you're impossible to satisfy when you want to be on the other side of the fence--as clearly you do here.
I haven't studied Meyer & Moran in depth but I do note a lack of rigour, that's true. Its not science as I know it. But why do you make this about me RS? Its just science. Science is by nature rigorous - if you don't like (more likely too lazy for) rigor you could have chosen the subjectivist route, yet you frequently ridicule that. Seems you want to have your cake and eat it.

Quote:
All you would have to do is insist both listeners in the ODAC vs DAC1 test were predisposed to hearing no difference.
I must have missed something vital - why has this become about me now? I'm merely asking for you to support your claim, which has long been the tradition in science.

Quote:
Well if you actually watch the video, and look at the power point slides, you'll see Ethan presents his criteria for transparency. I point it out very clearly in my article.
I have seen the criteria (set out on your blog, not yet watched the video) but they are not rigorous. For example, one thing stands out - the noise is assumed not to be correlated with the signal and no indication of the time scale for measuring the noise is given. Yet S-D converters of the kind you have chosen are fairly well known for exhibiting noise modulation.

Quote:
He clearly states gear meeting those specs will sound just like every other gear meeting those specs because it's transparent and its contribution to the signal path is inaudible. The ODAC and DAC1 meet those specs
So let me get this clear - its an argument from Ethan Winer's authority? Because Winer states something, it enters the annals of scientific truth never to be questioned? Is that what you're saying?

Quote:
So Ta Da! By his definition the ODAC is transparent.
I see - so to you, Ethan Winer is a guru - you just take his word for it. End of.

Quote:
Will you please shut up now? (but we all know you won't. And, sorry to disappoint you, but you've proven many times over you're not worth the time at the keyboard to debate blow by blow. Others here have called you a troll multiple times including some of the moderators.)
Indeed all correct, based on individual's subjective feelings. But just because a mod calls me a troll, does that mean the claim is scientifically a valid one? I've yet to see a falsifiable definition of 'troll'.
__________________
It doesn't have to take the form of a conspiracy, rather a consensus... James H Kunstler
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd April 2012, 02:56 AM   #38
diyAudio Member
 
RocketScientist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Northwest
Quote:
Originally Posted by abraxalito View Post
I see - so to you, Ethan Winer is a guru - you just take his word for it.
I also referenced additional information besides just Ethan. And yeah, compared to the complete lack of credentials I've seen for you, Ethan is a relative guru. I've never seen anything that indicates we should accept your word over his.
__________________
http://nwavguy.com - Personal non-commercial audio blog
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd April 2012, 03:03 AM   #39
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: 98
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 RocketScientist View Post
I've never seen anything that indicates we should accept your word over his.
Curious - when has science been about accepting anyone's word, no matter how credentialed?
__________________
It doesn't have to take the form of a conspiracy, rather a consensus... James H Kunstler
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd April 2012, 03:11 AM   #40
diyAudio Member
 
scott wurcer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: cambridge ma
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackinnj View Post
Au contraire, if you want to stop poaching, you have to make the commodity being poached so inexpensive that it isn't worth the economic effort to poach.
Rhino horn?

I think the best approach was when the park rangers mounted dual 50 caliber machine guns on their jeeps.
__________________
Silence is so accurate.
  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 04:59 PM.


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